



































































































4 











































UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
the^Farm SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

AND 

THE BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

COOPERATING 


Social Status and Farm Tenure - Attitudes and Social 
Conditions of Corn Belt and Cotton Belt Farmers 

BY E. A. SCHULER 


SOCIAL RESEARCH REPORT NO. IV 


WASHINGTON, D. C., APRIL 1938 
Monograph 






In order that administrators might be supplied with needed informa¬ 
tion concerning the problems and conditions with which its program is con¬ 
cerned, the Resettlement Administration (absorbed September 1, 1937, by the 
Farm Security Administration) with the cooperation of the Bureau of Agri¬ 
cultural Economics conducted a number of research investigations. This 
is one of a series of reports on these researches. Others will be made 
available to administrators of programs for the welfare of rural people 
as rapidly as they are completed. Reports to be issued, as planned at 
this time, include: 

I. An Analysis of Methods and Criteria Used in Selecting Families for 
Colonization Projects, by John B. Holt. 

II. Tenure of New Agricultural Holdings in Several European Countries, 
by Erich Kraemer. 

III. Living Conditions and Population Migration in Four Appalachian 
Counties, by L. S. Dodson. 

IV. Social Status and Farm Tenure - Attitudes and Social Conditions of 
Corn Belt and Cotton Belt Farmers, by E. A. Schuler. 

V. Family Selection on a Federal Reclamation Project - Tule Lake Di¬ 
vision of the Klamath Irrigation Project, Oregon-California, by 
Marie Jasny. 

VI. A Basis for Social Planning in Coffee County, Alabama, by Karl Shafer. 

VII. Influence of Drought and Depression on a Rural Community - A Case 
Study in Haskell County, Kansas, by A. D. Edwards. 

VIII. Disadvantaged Classes in American Agriculture, by Carl C. Taylor, 

Helen W. Wheeler, and E. L. Kirkpatrick. 

IX. Analysis of 70,000 Rural Rehabilitation Families, by E. L. Kirk¬ 
patrick. 

X. Standards of Living in Four Southern Appalachian Mountain Counties, 
by C. P. Loomis and L. S. Dodson. 

XI. Standards of Living of the Residents of Seven Rural Resettlement 
Communities, by C. P. Loomis and Dwight M. Davidson, Jr. 

XII. The Standard of Living of Farm and Village Families in Six South 
Dakota Counties, 1935, by W. F. Kumlien, C. P. Loomis, et. al. 

(Published by the South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, 

Brookings, South Dakota.) 

XIII. Standards of Living in the Great Lakes Cut-Over Area, by C. P. Loomis, 

Joseph J. Lister, and Dwight M. Davidson, Jr. 

XIV. Standards of Living in an Indian-Mexican Village and on a Reclamation 
Project, by C. P. Loomis and 0. E. Leonard. 

XV. Standards of Living in Six Virginia Counties, by C. P. Loomis and 
B. L. Hummel. 

XVI. Social Relationships and Institutions in an Established Rurban Com¬ 
munity, South Holland, Illinois, by L. S. Dodson. 

XVII. Migration and Mobility of Rural Population in the United States, by 
Conrad Taeuber and C. E. Lively. 

XVIII. Social Relationships and Institutions in Seven New Rural Communities, 
by C. P. Loomis. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

MAY 2 O 1938 

t < < < 

DIViSKfti OF DQCUMFNIS 



/*> 

i 

H-EIctI 


4 

TI 

.US' 



jq 3 

CONTENTS 


Page 


Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . 1 

What Would You Do? . 1 

The Areas Studied . 3 


Chapter II. REGION AND RACE: ARE ALL FARMERS ALIKE? . 7 

The Basic Question . 7 

Attitudes and Opinions . 7 

The Agricultural Ladder and Lifetime 
Patterns of Behavior . 24 

Landlord-Tenant Relationships . 33 

Movement and Migration . 39 

Group Life . 44 

Levels and Standards of Living . 52 


Chapter III. ATTITUDES AND OPINIONS: WHAT DO FARMERS THINK 


ABOUT FARM PROBLEMS? . 64 

Desirability of Farm Ownership . 64 

Non-Owners and the Farms They Want . 70 

Increase of Farm Tenancy . 79 

Federal Government Programs for Farmers . 81 

Appraisal of Own and Other Families' 

Conditions . 84 




















Page 


Chapter IV. THE AGRICULTURAL LADDER: HOW IS IT WORKING? . 102 

The Basic Problem; What Does the Idea 
Involve, and How Well Does It Fit 

Conditions Today? . 102 

How Long Does It Take to Get There: 

Average Age of Male Farmers, by 

Tenure Status . 105 

How the Ladder Has Been Working: 

Farmers' Tenure Histories . 106 

Other Elements in Farmers' Lifetime Patterns . 127 


Chapter V. LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIPS: WHAT DO THEY 

INVOLVE? . 153 

The Basic Problem . 153 

Landlord-Tenant Interaction .. 154 

The Question of the Rental Agreement . 161 

Landlord-Tenant Disagreements . 169 

Operating Credit .171 

Where Will the Tenant be Farming Next Year? . 173 


Chapter VI. MOVES AND MIGRATION: HOW OFTEN AND HOW FAR? . 177 

Stability or Mobility . 177 

Lifetime Patterns of Moving . 179 

Duration of Present Farm Occupancy . 182 

Distance Covered in Last Reported Move . 185 


Measures of Frequency and Distance 


187 




















Page 


Chapter VII. GROUP LIFE IN THE COUNTRY; WHAT DOES IT CONSIST OF? 190 

By Way of Introduction . 190 

Informal Social Participation . 192 

Formally Organized Group Participation . 206 

Miscellaneous Types of Group Life . 214 

Chapter VIII LEVELS AND STANDARDS OF LIVING; WHAT FARM 

FAMILIES HAVE AND WHAT THEY PREFER . 216 

Things to Live With ... 216 

Things to Make Use Of . 227 

Things to Avoid if Possible . 230 

What the Farm Provides . 231 

The Farm as a Productive Plant . 234 

Appendix THE TENURE CLASSES COMPARED .,. 237 

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS . 241 

METHODOLOGY . 244 

EVALUATION OF SAMPLE . 249 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . 252 


SCHEDULE 


253 


















FOREWORD 


This preliminary report deals with phases of land tenure which are 
widely discussed but upon which, so far as known, specific information has 
never before been assembled. In essence, it represents a study of the 
attitudes, opinions, and aspirations of families whose economic and social 
status is to a considerable extent predicated upon their land-tenure 
status. 


The investigation was projected upon the assumption that effective 
and successful assistance to farm families in the lower tenure status 
should be based as much upon the attitudes and aspirations of the family 
to be assisted as upon the character of the land or the particular tenure 
contract. The report does not attempt to say that the attitudes and 
opinions expressed by the response to the questions asked are valid, or 
that the hopes and aspirations are attained. What it does do is to 
present a faithful picture of what these people think of their own status, 
of the status of others around them, and of the prospects for improving 
their conditions in life. 

This is, in fact, a study in social psychology, and, being one of 
the few studies in that field, its contribution is believed to be of more 
than ordinary importance. 


CARL C. TAYLOR 

In Charge, Division of Farm Population 
and Rural Life, Bureau of Agricultural 
Economics; and Social Research Section, 
Farm Security Administration. 



SOCIAL STATUS AND FARM TENURE - ATTITUDES AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS 


OF CORN BELT AND COTTON BELT FARMERS 


By E. A. Schuler 


Chapter I 
INTRODUCTION 


What Would You Do? 


Let us suppose you are interested in the problem of farm tenancy. 
So seriously interested, in fact, that you are willing to take a full 
year from your regular work and spend a good share of any extra funds 
you have on hand to answer to your own satisfaction the question, "What 
does 'farm tenant' mean in the United States today?" Where would you 
begin? What would you do? 

The first problem, probably, would be to decide on the method 
to use. It would be possible, for instance, to study the history of 
farmers in this country, beginning with the earliest pioneering days 
and coming up to the most recent post-depression developments. You 
would spend your time in libraries, in county court houses and State 
governmental buildings, digging out all sorts of dusty documents, prying 
loose every available relevant fact. Then, having completed your ex¬ 
plorations, you would try to trace out the development of farm tenancy 
as it is today. 

Instead of turning historian and consulting the written or printed 
source materials, you might prefer to investigate only the farm tenants 
themselves, locating a few families - working, playing, living with 
them - and studying them intensively but sympathetically in order to 
see just how they behave, think, and function in their respective com¬ 
munities. If you wished to do careful, conscientious work, it would be 
possible for you to study only a very few families in your allotted 
12 months. Even so, you might not feel sure, at the end of the period, 
that the families you had studied were true representatives of the 
particular tenure class you had set out to understand. 

To avoid this serious difficulty, you might decide to start out 
with your car and trailer, simply "covering the country" as you go, 
talking briefly with every farmer you found along the way. If you kept 
notes and checked up at the end of each day, you would discover that you 







2 


























































































































- 3 - 


had spent hours with some farmers, 30 minutes with others, and no time 
at all with some men who didn't want to stop work and talk. You would 
also find that you had talked about some things with one man and about 
other things with another. You would soon conclude that without keeping 
notes on the information obtained from all the farmers to whom you had 
talked on any particular topic, you could not say with any assurance 
that most of the farmers in an area thought thus and so, had done thus 
and so, or would like to do thus and so. To make sure that in the future 
you overlooked no important question in an interview, and that no farmer 
was left out in the discussion of an important topic, you might make 
a brief outline to remind yourself of points not to be missed. You might 
go so far as to prepare a handy form for recording the responses to 
your questions. 

But you would still have the problem of limiting the number of 
interviews to be made, for you could easily spend the rest of your 
active lifetime in talking with farm tenants - to say nothing of their 
wives - without visiting more than a fraction of them. A glance at 
maps made by the U. S. Department of Agriculture showing the distribution of 
farm tenancy would convince you that there are two main areas of high 
tenancy rates in this country. The first is in the South, beginning 
in the East with southern Virginia and northern North Carolina, and 
stretching like an irregular crescent westward through the Southern 
States to Texas and Oklahoma. The second is in the Corn Belt, with 
high points in central Illinois, the northwestern quarter of Iowa and 
adjacent portions of Nebraska, South Dakota, and Minnesota. These two 
areas alone contain over 1,500,000 farm-tenant families, more than 
one-half of all those in the country (Fig. 1). Obviously, a year wouldn't 
be long enough for you to get in touch with a good sprinkling of all 
these farmers. 

In this dilemma you would probably turn for advice to the men 
whose business it is to study these problems, especially the rural 
sociologists and the agricultural economists at the Agricultural Ex¬ 
periment Stations in the States involved. You would doubtless come 
away with a short list of counties to be studied. These counties would 
serve as a sort of sample of the area you wanted to cover but hadn't 
the time to tackle. 

While you are still eyeing the list of sample counties and ponder¬ 
ing how best to proceed, perhaps we may profit by the pause to make you 
a proposal: We will make all the preparations, take all the responsi¬ 
bility, pay all the bills - in short, make the study for you - if you are 
willing just to go along with us. As a matter of fact, we have assumed 
your willingness to do this, and the survey you had in mind has already 
been completed. 


The Areas Studied 


If you were to begin tomorrow, making two visits in the morning 





- 4 - 


and two in the afternoon every week day, week after week, regardless of 
rain, snow, sleet, or dust storms, planting or harvesting, people away 
from home, your own illnesses or those of others. Thanksgiving, Christ¬ 
mas, the Fourth of July, it would take you 2 solid years to come in con¬ 
tact with as many families as we did in making this study. Even though 
you can't afford to talk to 2,400 farmers and more, perhaps you can spare 
a few minutes to make a flying trip around the country with us, visiting 
each of the counties in which we made interviews. 

With Washington, D. C., the headquarters of the study, as our 
point of departure, we would probably want to head for the nearest area 
first. This happens to be Wilson County, North Carolina, which lies 
about 40 miles east of Raleigh in the northeastern part of the State. 
The land is very fertile, producing much flue-cured tobacco, some cotton, 
and some corn. 

Cutting southwest across the State, we come, about midway east 
and west in the southernmost tier of counties and not far from Charlotte, 
to Union County, North Carolina. Here we find the land not quite so 
good, much more cotton, and much less tobacco. 

Going almost straight west, we next arrive in Greenville County, 
South Carolina, its county seat being the city of Greenville. Here we 
find much part-time farming associated with employment in the cotton 
mills, a situation that is characteristic of a long but rather narrow 
strip of country running northeast into North Carolina and southwest 
and west into Georgia. 

From Greenville we cross Georgia and make the next stop about 
160 miles northwest of Montgomery, in Hale County, Alabama, which is 
in the area known as the "Mississippi-Alabama Black Belt." The term 
refers to the color of the rich, heavy soil, although your guess that 
Negroes outnumber whites here would not be wrong. But in Hale County 
a sort of agricultural revolution is taking place, for the old-time 
plantation system is gradually giving way before the newer dairying 
and livestock type of farming which uses the soil to the same advantage 
but finds less need for the large population of colored folk. 

Continuing straight west across Mississippi and into northwestern 
Louisiana, about 50 miles south of Shreveport we come to Red River 
Parish, stretching along the river from which it takes its name. Here 
are typical Delta cotton plantations with incredibly deep and productive 
soil, but with living conditions among the Negroes probably as sorry as 
anywhere in the South. The Delta is not simply the swampy tip end of 
Louisiana where the Mississippi enters the Gulf of Mexico; it is the 
flat and fertile flood-land that borders the Mississippi and its larger 
tributaries, sometimes on one side or another and sometimes on both 
sides, halfway from the Gulf to the Great Lakes. Most of this large 
area is characterized by the same bi-racial population, the same set 
of social relationships, the same efficient production of cotton according 
to the pattern of the Deep South. 


- 5 - 


Less than a hundred miles from Red River Parish, after crossing 
the State line into the Pine Hills area of eastern Texas, we reach the 
sharply contrasting county of Nacogdoches. This local area is possibly 
more similar to Union County, in southern North Carolina, than any of the 
others we have visited on this trip; slightly hilly country with poor 
soil, small farms, tenants relatively much rarer than in the productive 
Delta area, and low incomes even among farm owners. 

Northwest from here, about 30 miles north of Dallas, we come to 
Collin County in the northern part of the famous Black Waxy Prairie of 
Texas. This area is characterized by good soil, a very small proportion 
of Negroes, and a shift toward large-scale farming operations that 
requires an increased use of hired laborers and modern farming machin¬ 
ery. 


Another good day's drive brings us to Beckham County, in south¬ 
western Oklahoma, on the eastern edge of the Dust Bowl. Here the suc¬ 
cessive dry years, grasshopper plagues, and courage-sapping dust storms 
have left the cotton farmers with little to live on and with small hope 
for future improvement. By the time we reach Beckham County, the colored 
element in the population has disappeared completely. We have crossed 
the New Southwestern Cotton area, leaving the Old Southeastern Cotton 
area far behind - we have now reached the western edge of the Cotton 
Belt. 


Turning back toward the east, traversing Oklahoma, and moving 
into Arkansas about 40 miles south of Little Rock, we get to Jefferson 
County, Arkansas. Here, close by the Arkansas River, the plantation 
life is very similar to that in Red River Parish, Louisiana. 

Heading for Memphis and going about 80 miles northeast of there, 
we next arrive at Crockett County, Tennessee, just east of the Missis¬ 
sippi Delta. This comprises a slightly rolling area of fair fertility, 
although it is not to be compared in this respect with the rich bottom 
lands. Here you should take a good look around, for this will be our 
last stop in the Cotton Belt. 

Turning north and traversing almost all of the State of Missouri, 
we come to Gentry County, about 80 miles north of Kansas City, almost 
in the northwestern corner of the State. Here, instead of the cotton 
culture we have been observing, we find the corn, oats, hay, and live¬ 
stock characteristic of the Midwest. A few Negroes live in Gentry 
County, but they form an insignificant fraction of the people living 
in towns and constitute no part of the farm population. 

Jones County, Iowa, just east of Cedar Rapids, in the east-cen¬ 
tral part of the State, is our next stop in the Corn Belt. This is a 
livestock-grain area. Here we find larger houses, larger incomes, and 
slightly less satisfaction with "New Deal" programs for farmers. 


- 6 - 


Not so far to the east, almost squarely in the center of Illinois, 
McLean County will probably impress you as very similar to Jones County, 
in Iowa, but its farms are primarily cash-grain rather than livestock. 

Going almost straight east to Mercer County, at the western edge 
of Ohio, we find farming and living conditions that represent pretty 
well both northwestern Ohio and the northern half of Indiana. Live¬ 
stock and grain, principally corn, afford a moderate but substantial 
level of living. 

With this stop we complete our tour of the local areas which were 
covered in the present investigation (Fig. 1, p. 3). 1/ 

Imagine now that a whole year has passed. In spite of rain and 
flood, snow and sleet, dust storms and mud, the farmers have been visited. 
They have told their stories - where they were born and where they have 
moved, how they have fared on the agricultural ladder, what they think 
about Uncle Sam and his dealings with the farmer - these and many other 
things. The bulk of raw material gathered has been worked over and over 
to see what it would yield of value to you; and finally, after what seems 
more like a decade of effort than a single year, the results are ready to 
be turned over to you. The pages that follow are devoted to telling you, 
as simply and clearly as limits of time and ability permit, the story 
of what we have found "farm tenant" to mean. 

In order to understand the farm tenant, however, it has been neces¬ 
sary to study the other farm-tenure classes. Farm tenants, like human 
beings in any other category, live in contact with other classes of 
people. Therefore, it is desirable not only to see what relations exist 
between these and other farm folk, but also to see whether their outlook 
on life is the same or different, whether or not they show the same kinds 
of behavior, and whether or not they have the same things to live with. 
Accordingly, although our basic purpose is to understand the farm tenant, 
we have visited farmers in all tenure classes and we shall report what 
we have found concerning each group. 

Now that we have completed our preliminary preparations, surveying 
rapidly the ground that was covered, we are ready to begin our story. 
You will find in the Appendix, pp. 237-241 , definitions of the terms 
we are using, and a discussion of the various tenure classes and other 
categories according to which we are treating the information from our 
farmers. Here is the report we agreed to make for you. 


1/ As a matter of fact, it was impossible to study all the farmers 
in any of these counties. Instead, schedule information in most cases 
was secured from all of the families, regardless of tenure, within a 
single rural community, usually the most suitable minor civil division 
(ward, beat, or township) within each county. 



- 7 - 


Chapter II 

REGION AND RACE: ARE ALL FARMERS ALIKE? 


The Basic Question 

Our task is to find out just what the various tenure classes 
are like, how they are similar, how they are different, and what the 
idea of tenure class really means. But, you will recall, in our rapid 
swing through the South and through the Middle West we met a great 
variety of situations. We found in some local areas that Negroes greatly 
outnumbered whites; in others, that whites outnumbered Negroes; and in 
still others, that there were no Negroes at all. Throughout most of the 
South, Cotton is still King, although the acreage over which he rules 
has been considerably cut down; but throughout the Middle West the whole 
rhythm of life is different, for it is timed to keep step with the 
growing of corn and livestock. 

The question we must now consider is this: Are the farmers we 
met throughout the trip so much alike that we may combine our infor¬ 
mation on all of them, simply separating landlords, owners, renters, 
croppers, and laborers, to see how the tenure classes differ? If we 
find that the characteristics of Northern farmers and Southern farmers 
are the same or very nearly the same in all important respects, we may 
make the combination without difficulty. The same question is involved 
concerning Negroes and whites in the South, for many people regard the 
Negro farmer as different from the white farmer in traits so fundamen¬ 
tal that it would be very confusing to interpret data based on farmers 
of both races. In other words, if the farmers in our three sample pop¬ 
ulations are basically similar, they may safely be combined for the pur¬ 
pose of studying the nature of the tenure classes; but if they are not 
basically similar, each regional and racial group must be kept separate 
in order to see what a given tenure class is in each of the sample popu¬ 
lations, and also to see how tenure classes which bear the same name ac¬ 
tually differ. Since we are considering in this chapter the fundamental 
question of the similarity of farmers, regardless of race or region, 
you already know that we think the differences - psychological, socio¬ 
logical, agricultural, educational, economic, etc. - between Negro and 
white farmers in the South and between Southern and Northern farmers are 
of real importance. Therefore, these variations in sample populations 
must be considered before we take up our main problem, that of tenure 
differences. 


Attitudes and Opinions 

As we go further in the study of tenure classes the reasons for 
discussing and emphasizing the attitudes and opinions of the farmers we 
have interviewed will become evident. But even at this point it should 




■ 8 ' 


PERCENT 


80 


60 


40 


20 


0 

TOTALS — ► 355 NORTHERN 398 SOUTHERN WHITE 128 NEGRO 



BUSINESS RESPECT BUSINESS RESPECT BUSINESS RESPECT 



Better off and 
respected more 



Uncertain 



response 



Not better off and 
not respected more 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 32656 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 2.- Opinions of farm land owners regarding desirability of 

FARM OWNERSHIP FROM TWO POINTS OF VIEW: BUSINESS 

AND RESPECT RECEIVED. 


PERCENT 


80 


60 


40 


20 


0 

TOTALS 



12 12 
332 NORTHERN 495 S. WHITE 



417 NEGRO 



Better off 


Not reported 


Uncertain 


ffSS Not better off 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 32657 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 3.- Percentages of non-ov/ners (I) who think they would feel 

BETTER OFF, OR NOT BETTER OFF, IF THEY WERE MORTGAGED 
OWNERS, AND (2) WHO THINK OWNERS FEEL BETTER OFF, 

OR NOT BETTER OFF, THAN RENTERS. 


























































































































- 9 - 


be clear that, if we are interested in determining the similarity of 
farmers throughout the area we are studying, a basic question is: Do 
they think alike, and do they feel the same, about farm ownership? 

Farm owners are fairly well agreed that from a business point of 
view owning one's farm is preferable to not owning one's farm. Just 
about three out of every four, North and South, white and Negro, say 
they think the farm owner is "better off" than the non-owner. But farm 
ownership is not purely a business proposition with many people. It has 
often been true in other countries and at other periods, as it is true 
today, that the prestige to be gained from owning farm land influences 
some people to become landowners. 

When we ask farm owners, "Do you think people respect you more 
as a farm owner than they would if you were a renter?" we find that 
a marked difference appears between the North and the South; in the 
North less than half of the owners think they receive more respect than 
they would if they were renters, while in the South more than three out 
of four say that they receive more respect as owners than they would if 
they were renters (Fig. 2). To put it differently, you would meet farm 
owners who felt that they were deriving prestige from land ownership 
just about twice as often in the South as you would in the North. This 
would be true whether you were talking with Negro or white owners. 

It is also important to find out what non-owners think about 
ownership, because one's social standing is probably determined more by 
what other people think of him than by what he thinks of himself. When 
we ask non-owners whether they think owners generally feel better off 
than renters, we find that the majority in each sample population say 
"Yes" (Fig. 3). However, Northern farmers show greater uncertainty, 
and a smaller proportion give an outright "Yes" than farmers in either 
of the other groups. Negroes, on the other hand, show the least un¬ 
certainty and give the largest proportion of "Yes" responses. Over nine 
out of ten of them say that they think owners generally feel better off 
than renters. In other words, although there is a certain general 
agreement, the feeling of economic difference between owners and non- 
owners is least marked among Northern, and most marked among Negro, 
farmers. 

These non-owning farmers, however, show striking differences of 
opinion when they are asked the following question: "Do you think you 
would feel better off if you owned this farm, but had a mortgage on it?" 
(See Fig. 3.) The idea of a mortgage definitely does not appeal to 
Northern non-owning farmers, for this phrasing of the question brings 
an affirmative response from only one-fourth of them. Two-fifths defi¬ 
nitely say they would not feel better off under these circumstances. 
But when we go to the South we find an entirely different situation. 
Over half of the white non-owning farmers and practically three-fourths 
of the Negro farmers indicate that they would be willing to risk the 


- 10 - 


mortgage in order to gain the advantages of farm ownership. Only one 
in four of the Southern white, and about one in six of the Negro, non- 
owners say they would not feel better off as mortgaged owners. 

Leaving now the somewhat hypothetical questions for those of a 
more concrete nature, we shall take up first the responses of non-owners 
to the question: "Are you seriously looking forward to owning a farm?" 
About half of the Northern, two-thirds of the Southern white, and three- 
fourths of the Negro non-owners answer "Yes." Of course, it is impossible 
to say that " seriously looking forward to owning a farm" means the same 
thing to all men. Nevertheless, these differences strongly suggest that 
Northern non-owners either are less optimistic and more realistic about 
overcoming the obstacles to farm ownership than those in the other two 
sample populations, or else they are less interested in becoming owners. 

If we make the question somewhat more specific and ask: "Would 
you say that your prospects of owning a farm in the next five years are 
good, fair, or poor?" we find in all three sample populations that what¬ 
ever optimism lurked in the answers to the first question has suffered 
a severe jolt. Just about one in ten of the non-owners in each of the 
samples feels that his prospects are good, but the proportion who think 
their prospects are fair is slightly larger in the North than in the 
South. Those who think their prospects are poor are fewer in the North 
than in the South, and fewer among the whites than among Negroes in the 
South. Practically two-thirds of the Negro non-owners feel that their 
prospects of becoming farm owners in the next five years are poor (Table 
1 ). 


Table 1.- Percentages of non-owners who think their prospects 
of becoming farm owners in the next five years are 

good, fair, or poor 


Classification 

• 

: Northern 

• « 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

Good 

14.2 

9.9 

13.7 

Fair 

33.4 

26.5 

22.0 

Poor 

48.2 

59.3 

63.4 

Uncertain 

4.2 

4.4 

.8 

Total number reporting 

332 

496 

714 


Although the majority of non-owning farmers in each of the sam¬ 
ple populations say they want to buy farms, the proportions express¬ 
ing such a wish are considerably larger among Southern than among North¬ 
ern farmers. Even more pronounced is the difference between the propor¬ 
tions of Northern and Southern non-owners who say "No"; they do not want 
to buy either the farms they are now living on, or any others. Northern 








- 11 - 


non-owners give this response relatively three times as often as do 
Southern non-owners, either white or Negro (Table 2). 


Table 2.- Percentages of non-owners who say they do, or do not, 

want to buy this or some other farm 


Response 

: Northern 

: Southern white 

; Negro 

Yes 

67.8 

85.9 

89.1 

Uncertain 

10.2 

3.4 

4.9 

No 

18.1 

4.2 

4.6 

Not responding 

3.9 

6.5 

1.4 

Total number reporting 

332 

496 

714 


If a non-owning farmer says he is locking forward to owning a 
farm, he probably has a clear idea of what sort of a farm he wants, 
where it is, how big it is, how much it would cost, and how much he 
could pay down toward its purchase. We have tried to find out from 
these non-owning farmers expressing a desire to become owners just 
what their thinking was in this direction. 

The size of the farm desired varies greatly among the three 
sample populations. Practically three-fourths of the Negro farmers are 
interested in farms of less than 50 acres. Only one-fourth of the 
Southern white farmers would be as easily satisfied, and only about 
one-twentieth of the Northern farmers would consider a unit of that 
size. About two-thirds of the Northern farmers say they want the farm 
they buy to contain 100 acres or more. About one-third of the Southern 
white farmers want a farm of similar size, but less than one-twentieth 
of the Negro farmers make the same request. 

Among non-owners who want to purchase some farm other than the 
present one, a marked difference appears between Negroes and whites 
with respect to their wish for help in finding a suitable place. Al¬ 
most nine out of ten such Negro farmers say "Yes," they would want 
help or advice; only about half of the white farmers give this 
answer. White farmers, six to seven times as often as Negro farmers, 
say definitely they would not want help or advice. It would seem clear 
from these responses that a plan for tenant aid or farm settlement 
acceptable to Negro farmers would meet frequent objections from white 
farmers if applied to them. Such objections would be somewhat more 
frequent in the North than among white farmers in the South. 

The same type of contrast, but to an even more marked degree, 
appears when this question is raised: "Would you want any advice from 





- 12 - 


your creditor in running your farm?" Many proposed plans to remedy or 
improve the condition of farm renters, sharecroppers, and farm laborers 
include as an important element the idea of supervision by the creditor 
agency over the person who is being helped. Most Negro farmers would 
not object appreciably to such assistance and would even welcome it. 
On the other hand, less than one-half of the white non-owners, both in 
the North and in the South, would be glad to get the assistance, and 
over one-third would definitely object to it (Table 3). 


Table 3.- Percentages of non-owners who say they would, or 
would not, want advice from creditor in running farm 


Response 

• 

• 

: Northern 

• • 

• • 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

Yes 

45.0 

39.7 

85.5 

Uncertain 

18.0 

25.7 

5.8 

No 

36.9 

34.6 

8.7 

Total number reporting 

111 

191 

207 


Parallel with the differences in size are the differences in 
estimated cost of the farms wanted by Northern and Southern farmers. 
Less than $1,000 would cover the cost according to practically one- 
fourth of Negro non-owners, about one-twentieth of Southern white, and 
less than one out of each hundred Northern non-owners. On the other 
hand, $10,000 or more represents the cost as estimated by Northern 
farmers in over half the cases, by Southern white farmers in one out 
of ten cases, and by Negroes in about one out of each hundred cases. 

"How much could you pay down on the purchase price?" is the next 
question, and the answers suggest sharply contrasting economic resources 
on the part of Northern and Southern farmers. About nine out of ten 
Southern farmers, both white and Negro, say they would be able to pay 
down less than $250 on the farm of their choice, while less than one- 
half of the Northern farmers specify so little. No Negro non-owners, 
and only 1 percent of Southern whites, say they could pay as much as 
$2,000 toward the purchase of the desired farm. But nearly one-fourth 
of the Northern farmers say they could make a payment of this size. 

The same tendencies reappear in reply to the question regard¬ 
ing size of loan required in order to buy the desired farm. Nearly 
one-half of the Northern non-owners say they would need loans of $10,000 
or over, while the same proportion of Negro farmers say they would 
need less than $1,000. Southern white non-owners in over eight cases 
out of ten specify amounts between $1,000 and $10,000, thus holding a 
position midway between that of Northern and Negro farmers. 





- 13 - 


The majority of farmers in each sample population would like to 
have somewhere between 10 and 30 years in which to repay the loans made 
to purchase their farms, although Negro farmers are thinking in terms 
of a shorter period for repayment than white farmers. Even a 10-year 
period would satisfy less than one white non-owner out of five in the 
South and less than one out of ten in the North (Table 4). 

Table 4.- Percentages of non-owners desiring to purchase 
farms who specify various numbers of years during 
which they wish to repay loans 


Term of loan preferred 

: Northern 

• • 

• • 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

Under 10 years 

9 

15 

47 

10 - 29 years 

70 

78 

51 

30 years and over 

21 

7 

2 

Total number reporting 

desire to purchase 

192 

374 

351 


Non-owners in the three sample populations differ widely in their 
concepts of a fair interest rate. What is regarded in the North as ex¬ 
orbitant is thought by Southern Negroes to be only just. Southern whites 
stand somewhere between the two extremes. Among Negro non-owners interest 
rates of 6 percent, 8 percent, and 10 percent are specified by nearly 
equal proportions of prospective borrowers, but in the North none mention 
a rate higher than 6 percent. On the other hand, one-fourth of the North¬ 
ern farmers, one-tenth of the Southern whites, and about one-fortieth of 
Negro farmers specify 3 percent or less as a fair rate. 

It was the long-continued, gradual increase in the proportion 
of farm tenants among ail farmers that provoked this study. Although 
the farmers we interviewed may or may not have known that tenancy has 
been increasing, it is important to learn whether they think the Fed¬ 
eral Government ought to do anything about it. Most farmers think the 
Government should take a hand, over two-thirds in the North and almost 
three-fourths in the South holding this opinion. There is a sharp 
contrast, however, between the proportions of Negroes and whites who 
think the Government should do nothing about it. About 10 percent in 
the North, 6 percent among Southern whites, and only 1 percent of Southern 
Negroes express this opinion (Table 5). 





- 14 - 


Table 5.- Percentages of farmers who think the Government should, 
or should not, do something about the increase of tenancy 


Response 

• 

• 

: Northern 

• • 

• • 

; Southern white : 

Negro 

Yes 

64 

74 

73 

Uncertain 

25 

17 

24 

No 

11 

6 

1 

Not responding 

— 

3 

2 

Total number reporting 

687 

894 

842 


In the case of those who think Federal assistance should be 
given, the next question obviously is: "What should the Government 
do about it?" Naturally the variety of responses is wide, but one 
suggestion is made by over half of all Northern farmers who think the 
Government should do something about the increase of tenancy - in one 
way or another, they say, credit facilities should be improved. This 
suggestion is offered more frequently than any other by Southern white 
farmers as well, although for them this solution does not loom nearly 
so large as for Northern farmers. The same remedy is proposed by Negro 
farmers, but much less frequently. Negroes most often urge strongly, 
without specifying just how, that the Government should aid farmers to 
become owners. This response, although it is more common among Negroes, 
is also given by white farmers (Table 6). 


Table 6.- Percentages of farmers who think the Government 
should do something about the increase of tenancy, 
who give certain suggestions 


Suggestions given 

• 

* 

: Northern 

• • 

• • 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

Improve credit facilities 

52 

29 

8 

Facilitate ownership by 
unspecified means 

14 

21 

38 

All other suggestions 

34 

50 

54 

Total number reporting 

442 

661 

617 


The Federal Government has set up several programs designed to 
aid farmers. What we want to know is this: Do farmers regard these 
programs with uniform degrees of approval or disapproval? The question 
raised regarding the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the first 
of the programs to be considered, is as follows: "Do you favor that 








- 15 - 


part of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration program whereby the 
Government pays farmers to reduce their crop acreage?" Our information 
makes it evident that this program, which was in effect with respect to 
certain cash crops in 1933, 1934, and 1935, received the approval of 
about one-half of the Northern farmers, three-fourths of the Southern white 
farmers, and two-thirds of the Negro farmers. It is possible, of course, 
that if other aspects had been considered the proportion of favorable or 
unfavorable responses might have been notably modified. 2/ 

The second question has to do with the Soil Conservation Program: 
"Do you favor that part of the Soil Conservation Program whereby the 
Government pays farmers for conserving or improving soil fertility?" 
From two-thirds to three-fourths of all farmers do favor it, but the pro¬ 
portion who oppose it decreases significantly as we go from Northern 
farmers through Southern white to Southern Negro farmers (Fig. 4). One 
of the most frequent objections raised by Northern farmers is that the 
Government should not pay farmers for doing something which they ought to 
be doing for themselves. 

The third governmental program considered is that of the Re¬ 
settlement Administration (now the Farm Security Administration). "Do 
you favor that part of the Resettlement Administration program v/hereby 
the Government helps needy farmers 'to get on their feet'?" is the way 
the question v/as posed. Because of the large proportion of "uncertain" 
responses, one might interpret this portion of Figure 4 to suit himself, 
for the largest proportions both of favorable and of unfavorable responses 
found in any sample population appear in the North, while the smallest 
proportions of favorable as well as of unfavorable responses appear 
among Negroes. The most significant implication of this figure may 
well be just this: large proportions of Southern farmers apparently 
know so little about the program of the Resettlement Administration that 
they are unwilling or unable to give an opinion about it. In the North, 
on the contrary, farmers are sufficiently familiar with its objectives 
and functions to make up their minds about it. 

The last of the governmental programs about which a question 


2/ It is also possible that if the question had been phrased differently, 
the response might have differed. Though the author took unusual pre¬ 
cautions to see that none of the questions contained bias, the point has 
been raised that Question 22 unwittingly expresses a bias against the 
program mentioned, v/hereas Question 26 may by its sympathetic language 
express a bias towards the program involved. At all events, the schedule 
should have made clearer than it did (1) that the AAA program mentioned 
in Question 22 was in effect from 1933 to 1935, but not later; and (2) 
that the Soil Conservation Program referred to in Question 24 began in 
1936 and has since continued as the major AAA program, and is distinct 
from the demonstrational projects of the Soil Conservation Service of 
the Department of Agriculture. 



PERCENT 


80 


60 


40 


20 



rADUTRC - NORTHERN! NEGRO 
rANMtKs S. WHITE 


PROGRAMS 


A. A. A. 


northern: negro 

S. WHITE 

SOIL 

CONSERVATION 


northern: negro 

S. WHITE 

RESETTLEMENT 

ADMINISTRATION 


In favor 


Uncertain 


Not responding 


northern: negro 

S. WHITE 

FARM CREDIT 
ADMINISTRATION 

Not in favor 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 


NEG. 32656 


BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 


Figure 4.- Percentages of interviewed farmers who are or are not in 
favor of certain aspects of specified Government Programs. 


PERCENT 


40 


30 


20 


TO 



FOOD AND/OR 
CLOTHING 


LIVESTOCK. 

MACHINERY 


FARM/HOME 

IMPROVEMENTS 


INVEST IN DEBTS(OTHER 
FARM/HOME THAN MORTGAGE) 


SAVE IT 


U. S. DEPARTMENT of agriculture 


NEG. 32659 


BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 


Figure 5.- Percentages 

HYPOTHETICALLY 


OF FARMERS WHO 
INHERITED $500 


SAY THEY WOULD DISPOSE OF 
I N SPEC I FI ED WAYS. 
























































































































- 17 - 


was raised is the Farm Credit Administration: "Do you favor that part 
of the Farm Credit Administration program whereby the Government makes 
loans to farmers?" About three-fourths of white farmers, both North 
and South, say they are in favor of this program. Negroes again in¬ 
dicate uncertainty too frequently to permit us to judge the relative 
importance of the favorable and unfavorable responses. Fewer farmers 
registered definite objections to the Farm Credit Administration than to 
any of the other programs considered (Fig. 4). 

What do farmers think of their own occupation? Do they want 
their sons to continue as farmers, and, if so, to what tenure class 
do they want their sons to belong? The first question, "Would you 
rather farm than do anything else for a living?" is answered affirm¬ 
atively by about 80 percent of the white farmers and about 86 percent 
of the Negro farmers. In other words, the large majority of farmers 
either are carrying on the occupation that they chose for themselves or, 
if not, they have become so fully reconciled to farming that only rarely 
would they prefer to do something else for a living, 

But when we ask the farmer what he would prefer to have a son 
do for a living, assuming the farmer had his choice, we get a very 
different impression. Only about one-third of white farmers definitely 
express a preference for farming as the occupation they would like their 
sons to follow, and Negro farmers express this preference only slightly 
more frequently. Probably the most significant contrast appears when we 
note the large proportion of Negro farmers who positively prefer some 
occupation other than farming as first choice for their sons. In fact, 
nearly half of all Negro farmers give responses of this type. White 
farmers, on the other hand, more frequently than Negroes, say that they 
have no preference as to the occupation they would like a son to follow. 
Northern farmers reflect this "let him decide for himself" attitude more 
often than white farmers in the South (Table 7) . Evidently the white 


Table 7.- Percentages of farmers who prefer farming to other 
occupation as occupation for son, or have no preference 


Preferred occupation 

: Northern : 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

Farmer 

36 

35 

39 

Other occupation 

15 

21 

48 

Uncertain 

22 

21 

7 

No preference 

27 

23 

5 

Total number of cases 

687 

894 

842 








- 18 - 


farmer, although willing to .leave the choice of an occupation considerably 
up to the son himself, would prefer somev/hat more frequently than not to 
have him become a farmer. For the colored farmer the reverse is true. 
The satisfactions to be derived from farm life, it would seem, are felt 
by the Negro in so restricted a measure that he would prefer a son to 
take his chances at some occupation off the farm. 

When we ask those farmers who prefer farming as their sons' occu¬ 
pation whether they would prefer them to be farm owners, we get an almost 
unanimous "Yes." Over 95 out of 100 in each of the sample populations 
give this response. Asking this same group of farmers a further question, 
"Do you think the Government ought to help him to become a farm owner?" 
we find notable differences between the responses of Northern and South¬ 
ern white and Negro farmers. The proportion of farmers who definitely 
think the Government should aid their sons to become farm owners increases 
markedly as we go from Northern through Southern white to Negro farmers. 
Conversely, the proportion who believes the Government should not aid in 
this process increases from an insignificant percentage among Negro farm¬ 
ers to 15 percent of all responses in the North (Table 8). 


Table 8.- Percentages of farmers preferring sons to be 
farm owners who think that the Government should, or 
should not, aid sons to farm ownership 



Response 

• • 

• • 

; Northern : 

Southern white 

: Negro 

Government 

should aid 




sons 


61.2 

79.1 

93.9 

Uncertain 


23.8 

15.8 

4.8 

Government 

should not 




aid sons 


15.0 

5.1 

1.2 

Total number reporting 

240 

316 

330 


What are some of the respects in which farmers feel their lot 
could be improved? According to one school of thought, the basic prob¬ 
lem of the farmer is to look after his land as all other difficulties 
will then more or less take care of themselves. From this point of 
view it is desirable to know what farmers themselves think of the care 
they are giving the soil. What does the farmer have to say about his 
present farming practices? Are these practices improving the soil, not 
affecting its fertility, or harming it? Roughly two-thirds of the farm¬ 
ers in each sample population say that they are building up the soil, 
one-fifth state that they are not affecting its fertility, and about 
one in ten admits that he is harming the soil by wearing it out or 
allowing it to run down. Evidently it would take much persuasion to 





19 - 


convince most farmers that their lot could be improved by means of new 
or additional soil-conserving or soil-building practices alone. 

The second of these questions, designed to find out how farmers 
themselves think they can best be helped, concerns size of present farm: 
"Do you think you would be better off if your farm were bigger?" It is 
answered affirmatively by one-half of the Negro farmers, but by less 
than one-third of the white farmers, North as well as South (Table 9). 
A substantial majority of white farmers clearly do not think they would 
be better off if they had bigger farms. 


Table 9.- Percentages of farm operators who think they would, or would 
not, be better off if their farms were bigger 


Preference 

: Northern : 

: Southern white 

: Negro 

Prefer bigger 




farm 

30.7 

28.2 

49.9 

Uncertain 

11.8 

10.9 

7.4 

Do not prefer bigger farm 

56.3 

58.4 

40.6 

No response 

1.1 

2.5 

2.0 

Total number of farm operators 

618 

841 

753 


Another problem vitally concerning many a farmer is that of 
credit. Accordingly, we asked, "Are you satisfied with your present 
credit arrangements?" The proportion of Negro farmers who find their 
present credit arrangements unsatisfactory is strikingly larger than 
that appearing among white farmers, both in the North and in the South 
(Table 10). This question was followed, whenever the response received 


Table 10.- Percentages of farmers who are, or are not, 
satisfied with their present credit arrangements 


Response 

: Northern 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

Satisfied 

72.9 

73.4 

48.7 

Uncertain and not 




reporting 

5.5 

6.1 

6.7 

Not satisfied 

21.5 

20.6 

44.7 

Total number reporting 

687 

894 

842 









- 20 - 


by the interviewer was an expression of dissatisfaction, by an inquiry 
as to the type of change the farmer would like to see brought about. 
The replies to this question give us some notion at least as to how 
present credit arrangements could be modified to make them more satis¬ 
factory to the farmer. Although the largest proportion of responses 
in each sample population has to do with lowering the interest rate, 
the importance of that type of modification in credit arrangements is 
relatively much greater for Northern farmers than for Southern farmers. 
The need for increased amounts of credit is felt by farmers in all 
three sample populations, but the credit shoe pinches Negro farmers 
more painfully than white farmers in this respect. Of the numerous 
other types of suggestions included in the responses, the most fre¬ 
quent is, "Give us more time for repaying our loans" (Table 11). 


Table 11.- Percentages of farmers dissatisfied with present 
credit arrangements who suggest specified types of changes 


• • • 


Suggestions 

: Northern 

: Southern white ; 

Negro 

Lower interest rate 

75 

50 

46 

Increased amount of 

obtainable credit 

10 

15 

26 

Longer period for 

repayment 

5 

3 

5 

All other responses 

10 

32 

23 

Total number reporting 

148 

184 

376 


To understand more clearly both the nature of dissatisfactions 
that farmers feel with respect to their present circumstances and the 
way in which the various tenure classes look at their neighbors, we 
asked this question: "Compared with the average farmer in this neigh¬ 
borhood, do you think your family is better off, about the same as the 
average, or worse off?" Most farmers in each of the three sample pop¬ 
ulations think their families are about the same as the average, but 
the proportion who regard themselves as worse off than the average in¬ 
creases as we proceed from Northern white through Southern white to 
Negro farmers. On the other hand, there is an increasing proportion 
of those who feel a definite superiority to the average as we go back 
from Negro through Southern white to Northern farmers (Table 12). 

In what respects do those families who feel better off or worse 
off than the average think they are so differentiated from their neigh¬ 
bors? White farmers, both North and South, feel better off or worse 
off primarily because of their financial conditions. But this seems to 
be about the only point of similarity. General living conditions are 






21 - 


Table 12.- Percentages of farmers who think their families as 
compared with other families in the same neighborhood are 
better off, worse off, or about the same as the average 


Opinion 

• 

• 

: Northern 

• • 

• • 

; Southern white : 

Negro 

Better off 

19.1 

11.2 

7.2 

Average 

75.1 

76.4 

65,8 

Worse off 

5.7 

11.5 

26.0 

No report 

.1 

.9 

1,0 

Total number of cases 

687 

894 

842 


mentioned twice as often as financial conditions by Negroes who feel 
better off than the average. Moreover, they are practically as cogent 
as financial conditions in inducing some Negroes to feel worse off than 
the average. The striking point to be noted in the responses of Negro 
farmers is the relative importance of food, clothing, or food and cloth¬ 
ing together, as a means of measuring either superiority or inferiority. 
White farmers, both North and South, seem to take adequate food and cloth¬ 
ing so much for granted that they mention such necessities only very 
rarely, but out of every five Negro farmers who feel worse off than 
the average, one holds these basic needs foremost in his mind (Table 13). 


Table 13.- Percentages of farmers saying their families are better off 
or worse off than the average in the same neighborhood who indicate 
certain respects in which they are better off or worse off 




; Northern 

Southern 

white 

Negro 


Item 

: Better : Worse 
off : off 

Better : 

off : 

Worse 

off 

Better : Worse 
off : off 


Financial con- 


dition 

47 

46 

36 

35 

15 

28 

General living 

condition 

21 

5 

19 

20 

31 

25 

Home and/or land 

15 

0 

28 

11 

25 

4 

Food and/or 

clothing 

2 

3 

3 

2 

12 

19 

Health 

0 

3 

1 

8 

0 

4 

Total number 

reporting 

131 

39 

100 

103 

61 

212 












- 22 


Another question throwing light on this same problem is: "If 
you inherited $500 today what would you do with it?" The answers to 
this question, representing in a way an imaginary next step toward 
the farmer's ideal standard of living, are revealing; but at the same 
time they are consistent with the information we have already present¬ 
ed, Food and clothing as something to buy with that $500 windfall are 
mentioned much more often by Negroes than by whites, and by Southern 
whites more frequently than by Northern farmers. Paying off debts 
looms large in the minds of Northern farmers, whereas Southern farmers 
think first of investing in a farm or home, nearly one-third of the 
Southern whites giving this response (Fig. 5, p,16). 

The next question was framed in a general way in order to learn 
whether farmers tend to think exclusively in terms of tenure classes, 
of education versus lack of education, of Negro versus white, and so 
on. The question was, "What class of people around here do you think 
is worst off?" It is impossible, unfortunately, to interpret the re¬ 
sponses to this question as we had hoped. The farmer frequently did 
not understand what the field agent was talking about when he spcke of 
"class of people"; and the field agent, in trying to clarify the ques¬ 
tion, found it difficult to avoid giving some suggestion, often through 
illustration, as to the type of answer that might be given. Never¬ 
theless, some significant differences between the responses given by the 
three sample populations should be pointed out. 

The proportion who think that farm owners are worse off than 
any other rural class is far greater among Northern than Southern farm¬ 
ers, either Negro or white. Among Negroes, croppers and laborers are 
most frequently said to be worst off. As might be expected, Negro 
farmers specify "Negroes" as being the worst off much more frequently 
than do white farmers in the South, 3/ while Northern farmers naturally 
mention Negroes not at all. It may also cause no surprise to learn 
that Southern white farmers say "shiftless" people are worst off more 
frequently than do either Northern or Negro farmers. The generalized 
response, "We are all bad off around here," comes most often from North¬ 
ern farmers, and least often from Negro farmers. Since this response 
suggests the absence of differentiation along tenure-class lines, it 
would seem that tenure-class differences are of decreasing importance 
as we go from Negro through Southern white to Northern farmers. 

What does the farmer think causes one class or another to be 
the worst off? If he is willing to say that he thinks some particular 
class is definitely worst off, which is usually the case, it is reason¬ 
able to suppose that he has in mind some cause or causes fundamentally 


3/ According to the supervisor of the colored field agents, Charles G. 
Gomillion, it is highly probable that the frequency of this response is 
far lower than it might have been if explanations of the question by the 
enumerators had been given less often in terms of tenure classes. 



- 23 - 


responsible for its relative plight. Whether his notion is valid or 
not, the farmer, like everyone else, acts in accordance with his best 
judgment and understanding of the way things work. Our inquiry was 
therefore phrased as follows; "What do you think causes them (that is, 
the worst-off class of people) to be worst off?" The most arresting 
finding is the frequency with which Negro farmers think of unfairness 
or injustice as the causative factor. That low wages or low income 
in general are responsible is the only other type of response given 
more often by Negroes. Over one-third of Northern farmers do not single 
out a certain class as worst off, which in itself is a significant 
finding. But of the Northern farmers who do specify some class as 
worst off, only one in a hundred mentions unfair treatment as a cause; 
the proportion among Southern whites is over one in twenty, and among 
Negroes, over one in six. Low wages or low income are important causes 
according to farmers in all three sample populations, but Negroes give 
this factor about twice as often as whites. Irregular work, inability 
to get work on a farm, or inability to get a farm to work constitute 
another significantly sizable category of responses. Unsatisfactory 
credit arrangements are mentioned by Northern farmers much more frequently 
than by Southern farmers (Table 14). 


Table 14.- Percentages of farmers specifying various causes 
for certain classes being "worst off" 


Causes specified : Northern : Southern white ; Negro 


Crop failure 
Depression, low prices 
Crop reduction, AAA 
Low wages, low income 
Irregular work, unemployment 
Credit arrangements 
Unfairness, injustice 
Bad management, shiftlessness 


4.8 

8.1 

1.1 

3.1 

3.1 

.7 

.1 

1.6 

1.1 

12.2 

10.6 

21.0 

7.4 

13.4 

10.0 

12.2 

3.1 

2.5 

.7 

5.3 

17.7 

6.9 

13.0 

2.2 


In view of these differences in thinking and others already pointed 
out, we feel it necessary to treat the tenure classes of the three 
sample populations separately. To combine owners, renters, croppers, 
and farm laborers from the North with those from the South, to con¬ 
sider whites together with Negroes, would serve to conceal just what 
we are trying to reveal. The evidence is in, and we can answer the 
question put at the beginning of this chapter. These differences in 
the thinking of the three sample populations and other differences 
already pointed out make it necessary to treat the tenure classes sepa¬ 
rately. 





- 24 - 


The Agricultural Ladder and Lifetime Patterns of Behavior 

In this section we want to try to answer the question, "How 
similar are the lifetime patterns followed by Negro and white farmers 
in the South, and by farmers in the North?" Better known than any other 
figure of speech by which the economic lifetime pattern of the farmer's 
behavior has been expressed is the phrase, "climbing the agricultural 
ladder." Although this expression is possibly less accurate today than 
it was once, we shall use it freely for want of a better one. The idea 
represented by the term is simply this; the farmer, supposedly starting 
his career as a hired man, climbs, by means of industry and perseverance 
backed by dauntless ambition, through the stages of cropper and renter 
to ultimate farm ownership. Throughout the report we shall consider 
owners to be at the top of the agricultural ladder, renters just below, 
croppers next, and farm laborers at the bottom rung. 

Suppose we place in one category all those farmers who now occupy 
a lower status than the highest they have ever achieved, and in another 
those who at the present time are in a tenure status as high as they have 
ever attained. Immediately we find a substantial difference between 
Southern and Northern farmers. Over 15 percent of the former and less 
than 10 percent of the latter report that their present tenure class 
represents for them a drop in status from the highest ever attained. 
If we consider only present non-owners, however, we find that 28 percent 
of Southern whites report the same type of drop from highest status ever 
attained, while this is true of only 20 percent of Northern, and less 
than 20 percent of Negro non-owners. On this basis, white non-owners in 
the South seem to be relatively worse off than those in the North and con¬ 
trary to the common impression, worse off than Negro non-owners. About 
one of every five Northern and Negro non-owners, and about one of every 
four Southern white non-owners, once occupied a rung on the agricultural 
ladder higher than that he now claims. 

Suppose, instead of two groups, we make three groups out of each 
sample population. If we place in the first all those farmers who have 
climbed higher than the rung from which they started their farming 
career, in the second all those who today occupy the same rung as in the 
beginning, and in the third those who have fallen to a rung lower than 
the one they held at first, we again find the least fortunate group 
larger in the South than in the North. Less than two out of one hundred 
Northern farmers report a lower tenure status at present than when they 
began farming, but in the South over eight out of one hundred farmers, 
both white and Negro, report histories of that type. In other words, on 
the basis of this second comparison the unfortunate farmers are relative¬ 
ly four times as frequent in the South, regardless of race, as in the 
North. This second comparison also brings out another noteworthy sample 
population difference: the proportion of all farmers who, in the course 
of their lifetimes up to the present, have actually succeeded in climb¬ 
ing higher than the stage at which they bagan on the tenure ladder 
is much larger in the North than in the South. There are about three 



- 25 - 


such successful climbers out of every five farmers in the North, while 
there are only two out of five in the South, white or colored, 

Many factors must be taken into account to give a satisfactory 
explanation of the differences just pointed out, but one of undoubted 
importance is the inheritance of cash or property. For every Negro 
farmer who reports receiving such a boost up the agricultural ladder, 
there are two among Southern white, and three among Northern farmers. 
Practically nine-tenths of Negro farmers report no inheritance of any 
kind, whereas the same is true of four-fifths of the Southern white 
farmers, and of less than two-thirds of the Northern farmers. 

Looking into the cash value of the inheritances reported, we find 
still further differences. One out of every four Northern farmers re¬ 
ports an inheritance worth $2,000 or more, while this is true of only one 
in ten Southern white, and one in one hundred Negro farmers. If we con¬ 
sider only those farmers who receive an inheritance of some kind, the 
percentage distribution shows even greater differences among the sample 
populations. While one-third of the Negro farmers who inherited cash or 
property report the value of the inheritance as being $1,000 or over, 
two-thirds of Southern white, and four-fifths of Northern farmers report 
an inheritance of this value. At the other end of the range of values, 
about one out of twenty Northern, two out of twenty Southern white, and 
four out of twenty Negro farmers report the value of the inheritance as 
less than $200. It rather seems that the Northern farmer is inclined 
to make use of an elevator in his ascent of the agricultural ladder. 
But we must bear in mind that, to achieve his goal of ownership, the 
Northern farmer usually has to pay much more for farm land than his South¬ 
ern cousin; hence the "elevator" idea may not be so apt after all. 

In the final comparison to be made on this topic, a distribution 
of inheritors by value of inheritance, we find that inheritance values 
are fairly well accounted for among Negro inheritors by the categories 
we have used. Among white farmers, however, and especially among those 
in the North, the upper limit is far too low to reveal clearly how the 
inheritances are distributed with respect to value (Fig. 6). 

So far we have discussed only one element, though certainly an 
important one, in the farmer's lifetime pattern of behavior. Some of 
the other elements to be found in the characteristic lifetime pattern 
are as follows: the amount of schooling the farmer and his wife were 
able to secure, the ages at which they left their parental homes, the 
ages at which they married, and the tenure-class origin of the farmer's 
bride. We want to know whether farmers and their wives in the three 
sample populations are of about the same age; whether the families of 
which these farmers are heads have the same general characteristics; 
whether present marriage unions have lasted about the same length of 
time in each sample population; and how the size of resident family 
and of household compare in the three groups of farmers. 


26 - 


percent 


60 


50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Northern 

265 




S. White 

189 • 


Negro 

95 


g71 


i 


£ 2 . 



UNDER 100 


100-199 


200-499 

DOLLARS 


500-999 1 , 000 - 1,999 2,000 AND OVER 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Figure 6.- Percentages or 

CLASS I FI EO 


NEG. 32669 


BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 


FARMERS WHO INHERITED CASH OR PROPERTY, 
BY VALUE OF INHERITANCE. 


PERCENT 


50 


40 


30 


20 


10 



NONE 


5-6 7-8 9-10 

YEARS COMPLETED 


11-12 13-14 15 AND OVER 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 32670 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 7.- Percentages of farmers who report having completed 

SPECIFIED NUMBERS OF YEARS OF SCHOOLING. 

































































































- 27 - 


There seems to be no very great difference between the amount 
of schooling received by white farmers in the North and that received 
by those in the South. But fewer Negro farmers have received any for¬ 
mal education, and the educational attainments of these are decidedly 
lower than those of the whites. The median 4/ number of grades com¬ 
pleted by the Northern farmers is 8.3, and by their wives, 8.7; among 
the Southern white farmers, it is 7.4 and among their wives, 8.3, the 
median number of grades completed by Negro farmers, however, is only 
4.0, and by their wives, 5.0, Figure 7 shows the proportions of men 
and women in the three sample populations who report having completed 
various numbers of years of schooling. 

To determine what farmers think of the education they themselves 
received, this question was asked: "Do you wish you had had more 
schooling?" From the responses it would seem clear that the Northern far¬ 
mer was able mostly to satisfy his wish for education, the Southern 
white farmer somewhat less, and the Negro farmer least adequately (Table 
15) . 


Table 15.- Percentages of farmers' responses 
to the question, "Do you wish you had 
had more schooling?" 


Response 

: Northern ; 

; Southern white : 

Negro 

Yes 

70.1 

85.7 

96.7 

Uncertain 

11.2 

7.3 

1.0 

No 

18.1 

6.3 

1.4 

No data 

.4 

.3 

.8 


One further question along this line was raised: "How much school¬ 
ing do you think a son ought to have?" The responses in this case show a 
marked similarity between white farmers, North and South, and a sig- 


4/ It may be well to explain what is meant by the term "median." If we 
were to arrange all the farmers from one sample population on the basis 
of the number of years of schooling they had completed, placing at the 
head of the row those who had completed the largest number of years, and 
at the foot those who had completed the fewest, then the person who stood 
exactly midway between the extreme head and the extreme foot of the line 
would be the one who had received the median amount of education. Al¬ 
though the median is less commonly known than the average, it is some¬ 
times more useful than the average because it is not so much influenced 
by unusually large or small values, If you are not acquainted with the 
term, you will not be far off in substituting "typical" or "average" 
whenever we use "median." 















- 28 - 


nificant difference on the part of Negro farmers. About one-third of 
the white farmers think a son should have a college education, al¬ 
though one-half regard a high school education as sufficient. Negro 
farmers, on the other hand, in about one-third of all cases, give a 
response which cannot be classified in terms of the educational hi¬ 
erarchy; they say they want a son to have all the education he can 
get. About one-fourth specify high school, and another fourth, college 
educations (Table 16). 


Table 16.- Percentages of farmers reporting various 
amounts of schooling desired for son 


Amount of schooling 

: Northern 

• • 

• • 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

Grade school 

4.2 

3.6 

4.5 

High school 

47.0 

50.0 

24.7 

College 

35.0 

32.9 

27.6 

Uncertain 

6.6 

3.5 

8.3 

Other 

6.6 

9.6 

34.2 

Not reported 

.6 

.4 

.7 


One of the most important turning points in a person's lifetime 
is that day when he leaves his parental home to attempt to make his way 
for himself. It is well known that girls usually leave their homes at 
an earlier age than boys. It is not so well known, however, that there 
are consistent differences between Northern, Southern white, and Southern 
Negro farm people, both males and females, both in the older and the 
younger generations, with respect to the average age at which they leave 
home. In every sex and generation category, Negro farm people leave 
home at the youngest average age. Northern farm people at the oldest 
average age, and Southern whites fall about midway between. There are 
consistent differences between the younger generation and the older 
generation, the younger people in every comparison leaving home at an 
earlier age than their parents did. Along with the increased mecha¬ 
nization of farming, the need for help on the farm has doubtless de¬ 
clined, thus affecting the age at which young people leave home (Table 17). 

After a person leaves home, the next important milestone in his 
career is usually the finding of a mate. The age at which this takes 
place, like the age at departure from home, differs consistently among 
the three sample populations. Regardless of sex or of generation, 
Negroes marry at the earliest age on the average. Northern whites marry 
at the latest age, and Southern whites marry at an age somewhere between 
these two extremes. Consistent differences appear between generations 
in regard to the average age at first marriage, members of the younger 
generation regularly marrying earlier than their parents did (Table 18). 






- 29 - 


Table 17.- Average ages at time of leaving home 
by sex and by generation 


Sex and generation 

• 

• 

: Northern 

• • 

• • 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

Male informants: 

Average age 

21.9 

21.6 

20.5 

Number of cases 

576 

660 

634 

Homemakers and female 
informants: 

Average age 

20.6 

19.8 

19.3 

Number of cases 

587 

683 

552 

Sons of informants: 

Average age 

21.6 

20.9 

20.1 

Number of cases 

249 

413 

269 

Daughters of informants: 

Average age 

20.4 

19.3 

18.4 

Number of cases 

321 

479 

309 


Table 18.- Average 
by sex 

ages at time of first marriage 
: and by generation 


Sex and generation 

: Northern 

• • 

• « 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

Male informants: 

Average age 

25.1 

23.9 

22.1 

Number of cases 

617 

808 

752 

Homemakers and female 
informants: 

Average age 

21.7 

20.2 

19.8 

Number of cases 

598 

816 

698 

Sons of informants: 

Average age 

23.2 

22.1 

20.9 

Number of cases 

225 

392 

257 

Daughters of informants: 

Average age 

20.9 

19.4 

18.5 

Number of cases 

281 

462 

312 








30 



TOTALS—► 374 565 527 

NORTHERN ! NEGRO 
S. WHITE 


130 249 176 

NORTHERN ! NEGRO 
S.WHITE 


163 280 203 

NORTHERN ! NEGRO 
S.WHITE 


MALE INFORMANTS 


INFORMANTS' SONS INFORMANTS’ DAUGHTERS 



Marrying above own tenure class E88&3 Marrying within own tenure class 

Marrying below own tenure class 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 32671 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 8.- Percentages of male informants and their sons and daughters 

MARRYING ABOVE, WITHIN, OR 3EL0W THEIR OWN TENURE CLASS. 



NORTHERN ! NEGRO NORTHERN ! NEGRO 

S. WHITE S. WHITE 

CONTROL OVER CREDIT STANDS GOOD FOR DEBTS 



Yes 



Uncertain 


Not reported 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 32672 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 9.- Percentages of tenants/employees reporting landlord/ 

EMPLOYER HAS CONTROL OVER OPERATING CREDIT, AND STANDS 
GOOD FOR TENANTS*/EMPLOYEES* DEBTS. 





































































































































































































































































- 31 - 


What are the influences that operate in the farmer's selection 
of his mate? What is most important may vary from time to time and 
from place to place, but it is probable that tenure class is never 
unimportant. 5/ The largest percentage in each of the three sample 
populations secured their mates within their own tenure class, but the 
percentage marrying below their own tenure status decreases as we go 
from Negro through Southern white to Northern farmers. Comparisons of 
the three sample populations with respect to the same question in the 
case of informants' sons and daughters who have already left home and 
married shows the same general situation. This difference, however, 
may be noted: young farm people today marry below their tenure status 
considerably more often and above their tenure status slightly more 
often than did their parents.. This tendency is most pronounced among 
Southern whites. The fact that daughters tend to marry into a higher 
tenure class more frequently, and into a lower tenure class less fre¬ 
quently, than sons suggests several possibilities. Offhand, we may 
say either that upper-tenure-class daughters prefer not to be the wives 
of farmers' sons or that the upper-tenure-class sons may be aided in 
securing brides from lower-tenure-class families by means of their 
higher-tenure status advantages (Fig. 8). 

If we compare the average age of all farmers, men and women 
separately, in the three sample populations, we find the same type of 
age differences, as has been pointed out before. Northern farmers re¬ 
present the oldest group, Negroes the youngest, with Southern whites 
occupying a middle position. It is obvious that this basic difference 
in present average age is related to a number of other factors, some 
of which may be pointed out briefly. 

The first of these closely related factors is the duration in 
years of the marriage union to which the farmer now belongs. Over one- 
third of Negro farmers' families have existed for less than ten years, 
while this is true of just one-fourth of Southern white and of less 
than one-fifth of Northern farmers' families (Table 19). 

It does not follow, however, that the median family in the North, 
since it has lasted longest, therefore consists of the largest number of 
members. Although Northern farm families have existed longer on the 
average than those in the South, either white or Negro, still they include 
the largest proportion of small families and the smallest proportion 
of large families (Table 20). 


5/ The tenure classes recognized for this purpose were owner, renter, 
cropper, and farm laborer. The tenure statuses occupied by the parents 
of the bride and the groom at the time of their marriage were the cri¬ 
teria used. 



- 32 - 


Table 19.- Percentage distribution of families by 
duration of present marriage union 


Duration in years 

• • 

• • 

: Northern : 

Southern white 

• 

• 

: Negro 

Under 10 years 

18.3 

24.7 

34.6 

10 - 19 years 

23.6 

24.3 

24.9 

20 - 29 years 

28.4 

26.9 

20.3 

30 - 39 years 

19.0 

15.7 

12.6 

40 - 49 years 

8.2 

7.2 

6.3 

50 - 59 years 

2.2 

1.3 

1.4 

60 - 69 years 

.2 

— 

— 

Total number marriage unions 1/ 

584 

778 

700 

1/ Omitting all marriage unions 

for which information is not 

available. 



Table 20.- Percentage 
number of 

distribution of families by 
resident members 



Number of 

• • 

• • 




resident members 

: Northern ; 

Southern white : 

Negro 

One 


5.8 

3.2 

6.4 

Two 


30.9 

20.7 

27.7 

Three 


25.8 

22.7 

18.4 

Four 


17.9 

19.1 

14.7 

Five 


9.2 

11.4 

9.0 

Six 


5.4 

8.7 

7.7 

Seven 


2.6 

6.3 

4.6 

Eight 


1.3 

3.2 

4.9 

Nine 


.1 

1.8 

2.9 

Ten and 

over 

1.0 

2.8 

3.7 

Total 

number of families 

687 

894 

842 


When all families in the three sample populations are classified 
according to type, striking similarities appear among the Negroes and 
the Southern whites while families in the North offer various contrasts 
to those in either of the other two groups. A family is classified 
as simple, intact, and incomplete if not more than two generations 
are present, if both husband and wife are present, and if the wife is 
under 45 years of age. In spite of the fact that Southern families 
are larger than Northern families, more intact families appear in the 
South than in the North (Table 21). 










- 33 


Table 21.- Percentage distribution of families 

by type 


Type of family 

• 

• 

: Northern 

* • 

: Southern white ; 

Negro 

Simple, intact, 

incomplete 

39.8 

52.9 

56.0 

Simple, intact, 

complete 

39.2 

32.6 

23.9 

Husband absent 

3.8 

4.9 

6.3 

Wife absent 

1.7 

2.7 

4.3 

Complex 

9.3 

2.7 

5.7 

Brothers and/or 

sisters 

1.7 

1.8 

.4 

One member 

4.5 

2.3 

3.6 

Total number of 

families 

687 

894 

842 


In the North, there are just as many complete families as are 
incomplete, but in the South the proportion of complete families falls 
far below that of incomplete families. In other words, the sample pop¬ 
ulation differences in family size previously pointed out only begin 
to tell the story of differential population productivity on Northern 
and Southern farms. 


Landlord-Tenant Relationships 

Since we are primarily concerned with the extent to which tenure 
classes are alike or different in North and South, and among Negroes 
and whites, one of the most significant subjects we may consider is that 
of landlord-tenant relationships. If the landlord is practically a super¬ 
visor of the tenant, if the tenant is practically another wage hand, then 
the social status of the tenant will be vastly different from that of the 
landlord. On the other hand, if the tenant runs his farm practically as 
though it were his own, if he sees his landlord only once in a while, 
and if, when they do come together, the landlord does not give strict 
orders but simply discusses conditions on the farm, then clearly the 
difference between the status of the tenant and the landlord is not 
nearly so great. Our problem, accordingly, is this: to what extent do 
landlord-tenant relationships in the three sample populations reveal one 
or the other of the two types of situations just indicated? 

The question we put to non-owning farmers is as follows: "In 

general what does your landlord have to say about your farming oper- 






- 34 - 


ations?" 6/ Nearly one-third of the Negro non-owners say that they are 
given strict orders as to what should be done in running their farms. 
About one out of ten in the white groups gives the same type of response. 
The proportion of those who say their landlord simply "discusses problems" 
with them rises to nearly one-third among Northern non-owners, and drops 
to about one-tenth among Southern non-owners, both white and colored. 
The proportions who say that their landlord leaves the decisions entirely 
up to them show a still different pattern: nearly three-fourths of the 
white non-owners in the South reply in this way, while fewer (about two- 
fifths) of Northern and Negro non-owners give the sampe response. 

When we ask landlords and employers of farm hands the comparable 
question, that is: "In general, what do you have to say about the farm¬ 
ing operation of your tenant or employee?" we get a somewhat different 
story. 7 J Practically one-fourth of the Southern white landlords state 
that they give strict orders to their tenants or farm laborers while the 
proportion drops to one-twentieth among Northern and also among Negro 
landlords or employers. In other words, according to landlords, strict 
orders are given about five times as often by Southern white as by Negro 
or Northern landlords. Two out of five landlords in the North say that 
they simply discuss problems with their tenants, while among Southern 
white landlords only one in ten makes a similar statement. To put it 
still differently, four times as many Northern as Southern white land¬ 
lords reply in this way, It is also worthy of notice that this response 
is almost twice as frequent among Northern landlords as the response, 
"I leave decisions entirely up to him." That is to say, there is much 
more give and take, much more real discussion, between landlord and 
tenant than there is either of ordering and obeying on the one hand, or 
of leaving each other strictly alone on the other hand. Thus our figures 
point to a fundamental difference in living social relationships, the 
tissue out of which have grown fundamentally different organic social 
structures. 


6/ In' case the man being interviewed was a farm laborer, the term "em¬ 
ployer" was used in place of "landlord." 

7/ We must remember that, while the relationship between tenant and/or 
farm laborer and landlord-employer will be of only one type when we are 
talking to the tenant or farm laborer, several types of relationships 
may be involved when we are talking to the landlord. The landlord may 
be renting to different tenants with entirely different arrangements 
involving widely different types of relationships in each case. It was 
not easy to deal with such complex situations, but whenever we found a 
landlord actually renting on more than one basis, we attempted to se¬ 
cure information only with respect to the single tenant who had been 
renting from the landlord for the longest period of time. This procedure 
introduces a biasing element in our data from landlords, it is true, but 
to introduce a consistent bias is not so bad as to be inconsistent in 
the treatment of complex cases. 



- 35 - 


Closely related to the previous topic is this question: "How 
often does the landlord or employer, or a representative, come to the 
farm and discuss 8/ farming operations with the tenant or employee?" 
(See Table 22.) It is obvious that there is greater similarity between 
the figures for white and colored in the South than between those for 
Southern and Northern farmers. Beginning with the category of most fre¬ 
quent visits by landlord (daily) and progressing through the categories 
of less frequent visits, we find that Northern non-owners report daily 
visits, visits several times a week, and visits every week less often 
than do Southern non-owners, either white or colored. On the other 
hand, there are far fewer Southern than Northern non-owners who report 
visits by landlord only several times a year or not at all. In the South, 
however, Negro non-owners report frequent visits by landlord relatively 
more often, and infrequent visits less often, than do whites. 


Table 22.- Percentage distribution of frequency of 
landlord's/employer's visits to farm, as re¬ 
ported by tenants/employees 


Frequency of visits 

• 

• 

: Northern 

• • 

• • 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

Daily 

20 

40 

44 

Several times per week 

5 

16 

22 

Weekly 

6 

10 

14 

Every two weeks 

3 

3 

3 

Every three weeks 

1 

2 

1 

Monthly 

8 

7 

8 

Several times per year 

37 

14 

7 

Never 

19 

8 

1 

Total number reporting 

288 

164 

400 


In the preceding paragraphs we have been considering all non- 
owners together, but everyone knows that the laborer and the tenant 
ordinarily do not have the same relationship to the landlord. The 
laborer is paid a fixed amount for doing what he is told, whereas the 
tenant takes more or less of the risk involved in the gamble of farming 


8/ Although it is difficult to squeeze into a single word the wide 
range of types of relationships involved in the visits of landlords to 
their farms and in the interaction between the landlords and tenants on 
those occasions, nevertheless the term "discuss" is probably as satis¬ 
factory as any. 








- 36 - 


along with the owner, and. within limits, may exercise his judgment in¬ 
dependently. Accordingly, we must consider the frequency of visits by 
landlords and employers separately in the case of tenants and laborers. 

This comparison intensifies the previously indicated difference 
in status of the Southern and the Northern tenant. About one in twenty 
Northern tenants reports being visited daily by his landlord, whereas 
this frequency is reported by over one in four Southern white, and over 
one in three Negro tenants. Seventy-five percent, or three-fourths, of 
the Negro tenants are visited by their landlords once a week or oftener, 
while this frequency is reported by 57 percent of Southern white, and 
only 14 percent of Northern tenants. At the other extreme with respect 
to frequency of landlords' visits, practically three-fourths of all 
Northern tenants say they are visited either "never" or only "several 
times a year." This is true of only one-tenth of the Negro tenants 
and less than one-third of the white tenants in the South (Table 23) . 
In all three sample populations the proportions of laborers who report 
that employers visit them with varying frequencies are similar, the ma¬ 
jority reporting daily visits. 


Table 23.- Percentage distribution of frequency of 
landlord's visits to farm as reported by 

tenants 


Frequency of visits 

: Northern 

• • 

• • 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

Daily 

5 

27 

38 

Several times per week 

4 

19 

21 

Weekly 

5 

11 

16 

Every two weeks 

3 

3 

4 

Every three weeks 

1 

2 

1 

Monthly 

9 

8 

10 

Several times per year 

49 

19 * 

9 

Never 

24 

11 

1 

Total number reporting 

223 

123 

320 


Some students of the tenancy problem maintain that many diffi¬ 
culties could be avoided if all tenants had written rental agreements 
with their landlords. Without raising the question of the validity of 
this claim at the present time, 9/ it may be enough simply to point out 
that less than one-half of the non-owners in the North, about one-fourth 
of those among Negroes, and about one-sixth of those among Southern 


9/ See p. 161, in the chapter on Landlord-Tenant Relationships. 






- 37 - 


/ 


whites report written rental agreements. A tenancy-improvement program 
based on a modification of the terms in written rental agreements, it is 
evident, will find none too much to build upon in the South. 

To change the law, furthermore, is much easier than to alter 
the deeply worn paths of customary behavior- This is not to say, of 
course, that changes in the law may not be desirable or even necessary; 
but it is not beside the point to emphasize the sociological truism too 
often ignored by the reformer, that plans to modify human behavior, if 
they would be successful, cannot afford to disregard traditional pat¬ 
terns of conduct. They should be made with the fullest possible knowl¬ 
edge of, and with a recognition of, the limits of change imposed by 
those customary forms, 

Another solution to landlord-tenant relationship problems often 
stressed by writers on the subject is that the relationship should be 
made more permanent, so that the tenant, with a long-time program in 
mind, could plan his farming operations more efficiently and at the 
same time enjoy some feeling of security. From this point of view, the 
frequency with which rental agreements between landlord and tenant run 
for only one year at a time has vital significance. One-year agreements 
are reported by three-fifths of the Northern, over four-fifths of the 
Negro, and almost four-fifths of the Southern white non-owning farmers. 
The feeling of instability which often accompanies this type of agreement 
does not appeal to many people. On the other hand, it must be recognized 
that many a non-owner, especially among Southern whites, would rather not 
tie himself down to a particular piece for any length of time in advance, 
other conditions remaining as they are. He wants to be free to come and 
go as he pleases, with the privilege of seeking a new location whenever 
he thinks he can better himself by a shift. In fact, he regards this 
freedom of movement as his most powerful sanction against any potential 
exploitation. Of course, if he could feel reasonably sure of eventually 
becoming the owner of the farm he occupies, he would gladly forego this 
freedom. It would seem that the predominant 1-year rental agreement, 
therefore, is an arrangement that gives at least a modicum of satis¬ 
faction to the non-owner as well as to the landlord, and hence is not the 
one hundred percent evil it is sometimes considered. 

To test the validity of the idea that the rental agreement is of 
crucial importance in the mind of the non-owning farmer with respect to 
his landlord-tenant relations, we asked the following question: "If you 
had the chance, would you make any changes in your renting agreement?" 
The difference in the frequency with which non-owning farmers in the 
three sample populations reply that they would like to make changes is 
striking. Over one-half of all Negro non-owners say changes would be 
desirable, while only about one-fourth of the white non-owners, both North 
and South, give a similar response. In other words, for every white 
cropper or laborer who says he would like to make a change in the agree¬ 
ment with his landlord or employer there are relatively two Negroes in the 
same tenure classes who feel the same v/ay. 


- 38 - 


Although it is very rare for unpleasant relationships between 
landlord and tenant to reach the stage of open disagreement, the rel¬ 
ative frequency with which such disagreement is reported by Negro non- 
owners is consistent with the frequency with which they express a de¬ 
sire for changes in rental agreements, The total number of cases of 
disagreement is comparatively small, but among Negroes these cases 
occur over four times as often (9 percent), relatively, as among white 
farmers (2 percent), either North or South. 10/ 

It will be recalled that in the earlier discussion of farmers' 
opinions as to what is causing them the most serious trouble there was 
repeated reference to credit difficulties. It is, therefore, of con¬ 
siderable significance to see the overwhelming contrast between our 
three sample populations when the question of landlord control over non- 
owners' operating credit is raised. For every Northern non-owning farm¬ 
er who is extended operating credit by his landlord, there are relative¬ 
ly nine Southern white, and twenty-two Negro non-owners. In other words, 
landlords have practically nothing to say about their tenants' operating 
credit in the North, but they control it for one-fourth of the Southern 
white, and two-thirds of the Negro non-owners. Along with authority, 
however, goes responsibility, at least so far as Negro non-owners are 
concerned; practically one-half of these report that their landlord or 
employer stands good for their debts. Among white non-owners, this hap¬ 
pens in only one case out of a hundred, both in the North and in the 
South (Fig. 9, p. 30). 

How would the tenant or farm laborer run the farm differently if 
he owned it? It is generally assumed that ownership would, on the whole, 
bring about desirable changes and that is one of the reasons why measures 
to help non-owners become owners are being urged so widely. But just 
what would non-owners do differently if they were to become owners? To 
throw some light on this problem, we questioned all the non-owners whom 
we interviewed as follows; "Do you think you would run this farm differ¬ 
ently if you owned it?" Following affirmative responses, the next ques¬ 
tion was: "If so, what would you do differently?" The most important 
changes, according to our informants, would involve the amount of atten¬ 
tion given to the conservation of soil resources. These farmers say 
that they, as owners, would attempt to improve the soil by various 
means: the rotation of crops, the planting of legumes, and the reduction 


10/ Of course, it is possible to raise the objection that what the 
Negro non-owner means when he says he has had a "disagreement" with his 
landlord during the past year is something different from that the white 
non-owner means when he uses the same words. The methods we used in 
presenting our questions to farmers, regardless of race or locality, 
were designed to make both question and answer as nearly comparable as 
possible, considering the variety of conditions which were to be en¬ 
countered . 



- 39 - 


of acreage in such cash crops as corn in the North and cotton in the 
South. In addition they would spend more time, effort, and money to 
effect the building up of the soil or its conservation by physical or 
mechanical means resorting to terracing, contour plowing, strip planting, 
or tiling and draining whenever necessary. These types of soil conser¬ 
vation and improvement are mentioned much more often in the South than in 
the North. Among Negro informants, however, the change most frequently 
mentioned as one that would come about with farm ownership has to do with 
production of an increased amount of food or feed, This consideration 
does not enter the minds of Northern tenants, and occurs much less fre¬ 
quently to white tenants in the South than to Negroes. Another differ¬ 
ence between the North and the South, although it does not involve many 
cases, concerns references that are made to the condition of tenants and 
laborers: Southern non-owners, weighing the potentialities of ownership, 
say that they would attempt to improve the condition of others in their 
present class, whereas Northern tenants express no such humanitarian 
ideas (Table 24). 


Table 24.- Percentages of non-owners saying they would run 
farm differently if they owned it, who specify various 

types of changes 


Type of change 

• • 

• • 

: Northern : 

Southern white : 

Negro 

Improve soil by rotation. 

legumes, etc. 

60 

29 

17 

Improve soil by tiling, 

terracing, etc. 

6 

20 

16 

Increase growth of food-feed 

0 

10 

31 

Improve/increase livestock 

7 

2 

3 

Improve condition of tenants/ 

laborers 

0 

2 

3 

"Improve/build up the place" 

20 

9 

6 

All others 

7 

28 

24 

Total number reporting 

146 

221 

356 


Movement and Migration 

The first question we wish to raise regarding the migratory 
characteristics of our three sample populations is as follows: "How 

many years has the family lived on the farm it now occupies?" Al¬ 
though allowance must be made for the fact that the three sample pop¬ 
ulations vary insofar as the average ages of heads of families are 
concerned, their differences with respect to the median number of years 
farmers have lived on their present farms may still be significant. 






- 40 - 


The median figures are as follows: Northern, 11.9 years; Southern white, 
9.2 years; and colored, 7.5 years. Families of Negro farmers predominate 
in the categories representing the shorter periods of residence on the 
same farm, and there is a similar preponderance of families of white 
farmers in the categories representing the longer periods of residence 
(20 to 29 years, and 30 years and over). Thus we see again that farm¬ 
ers in the three sample populations, far from having identical character¬ 
istics, differ so much that a separate tenure analysis is necessary for 
each group, North and South, white and colored (Table 25). 


Table 25.- Percentage distribution of farmers by duration 

of present farm occupancy 


Duration of farm occupancy 

• 

• 

: Northern 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

One year or less 

8.3 

11.1 

12.6 

Two years 

6.2 

7.5 

10.6 

Three years 

6.2 

7.2 

8.3 

Four years 

5.4 

6.6 

5.8 

5-6 years 

9.2 

10.5 

11.3 

7-9 years 

10.9 

9.7 

14.9 

10 - 14 years 

9.9 

12.2 

13.2 

15 - 19 years 

11.2 

8.4 

8.4 

20 - 29 years 

15.1 

11.6 

8.1 

30 years or more 

17.6 

15.2 

6.8 

Total number of cases 

687 

894 

842 


If you have made a shift of residence within the past few years, 
you will probably testify to the truth of the old saying that "three 
moves are as bad as a fire." But we are less concerned with the mere 
wear and tear on tangible possessions than we are with the handicaps 
which result, whether or not they are consciously felt, when a family 
is constantly on the go, never remaining long enough in one place to 
establish itself among its neighbors. The children of these nomadic 
farm families must find it difficult even to imagine what "home" means 
to the child who lives in the same place from the time of his birth 
until the day he starts out into the world for himself. 

Another method of measuring the amount of shifting about is to 
ask a farmer how many times he has moved during his years as an inde¬ 
pendent person, disregarding the number of moves he made as a child or 
young man in his parents' family. This approach yields results which 
show notable differences between colored and white families. The median 





- 41 - 


figures are as follows: Northern, 3.0 times; Southern white, 2.3 times; 
and Negro, 3.5 times. In spite of the fact that the Negro farmers in 
our sample are younger on the average than the white farmers. North or 
South, the median number of times they have moved is one and one-half as 
often as Southern whites, and one and one-sixth times as often as Northern 
white farmers. Classifying all farmers by the number of times they have 
moved, we find there are more Negro farmers than white farmers, either 
North or South, who have moved three, four, five, six, or seven times 
(Table 26), 


Table 26.- Percentages of farmers reporting specified 
total number of times moved 


Number of times moved 

• 

• 

: Northern 

• 

• 

: Southern white 

• «. .. 

• 

Negro 

None 

17.3 

19.6 

8.8 

One 

15.7 

22.4 

15.8 

Two 

17.2 

18.3 

17.6 

Three 

14.1 

11.2 

16.5 

Four 

10.6 

8.8 

13.2 

Five 

7.0 

5.6 

8.9 

Six 

4.1 

3.6 

6.5 

Seven 

3.2 

3.1 

4.1 

Eight 

3.6 

1.8 

2.4 

Nine or more 

7.1 

5.5 

6.2 

Not reported 

.1 

.1 

— 

Total number of cases 

687 

894 

842 


Shifting from one location to another is one thing, but changing 
from one landlord to another is something else. Although Negroes seem 
to have the strongest case of wanderlust, they are satisfied apparently 
by short-distance moves, for they report changing landlords less fre¬ 
quently than do Northern farmers. The median number of times Negro 
and white farmers in the South have changed from one landlord or employer 
to another is only about 2, while for farmers in the North the correspond¬ 
ing figure is almost 3. This difference is due in part to the fact that 
plantation-operating Southern landlords have larger numbers of tenants 
than most Northern landlords have. A marked difference appears between 
Southern white and Negro farmers, however, when all farmers are distrib¬ 
uted into categories on the basis of the number of times they have changed 
landlords or employers. About one out of three white, and one out of eight 
Negro farmers say they have never changed their landlords or employers 
(Table 27). 







- 42 - 


Table 27.- Percentages of farmers who report having changed 
landlord/employer specified number of times 


Number of times changed 


landlord/employer 

; Northern ; 

Southern white : 

Negro 

None 

20.7 

34.0 

12.0 

One 

18.9 

18.1 

16.2 

Two 

13.5 

15.2 

20.1 

Three 

15.1 

8.4 

14.0 

Four 

7.9 

7.8 

11.2 

Five 

7.0 

4.1 

9.0 

6-7 

6.1 

4.5 

8.3 

8-9 

6.0 

3.0 

3.8 

10 - 11 

1.7 

2.7 

2.7 

12 or more 

2.9 

2.1 

2.7 

Total number of cases 

687 

894 

842 


For some purposes, it is most useful to know how often the farmer 
shifts his patronage from one trade center to another, for a change of 
this type, unlike that from farm to farm, usually involves a severance 
of ties within the community. Northern farmers, although they move less 
frequently than Negro farmers, shift from one trade center to another 
more frequently. Although trade centers are much more thickly distributed 
throughout most of the Corn Belt than the South, these data confirm the 
impression of frequent short-distance moves in the South as compared with 
less frequent, but longer, moves in the North (Table 28). 


Table 28.- Percentages of farmers who report having 
changed trade center specified number of times 


Number of times changed : : : 

trade center : Northern : Southern white : Negro 


None 

54.4 

58.8 

63.3 

One 

15.7 

16.9 

15.2 

Two 

13.8 

13.0 

12.6 

Three 

7.6 

6.0 

4.5 

Four 

3.8 

2.5 

1.4 

Five 

1.7 

1.5 

1.3 

6-7 

2.0 

.7 

.8 

8-9 

.6 

.3 

.6 

10 - 11 

.3 

.2 

.2 

12 or more 

— 

.1 

- 

Total number of cases 

687 

894 

842 









- 43 - 


Another type of comparison commonly made in measuring migration 
involves the number of changes from one county to another. Although 
the differences are very slight, the sequence in order of decreasing 
frequency of such moves, as measured by the median, is from Northern, 
through Southern white, to Negro farmers. The three sample populations, 
in fact, show pronounced similarity with respect to the proportion of 
farmers who have spent all their lives in the same county or who have 
lived in various numbers of counties. Practically two-thirds of all 
farmers. North and South, white and Negro, have never lived outside the 
county in which they were born. 

The same sequence appears when we compare the number of States 
in which farmers have lived. Northern farmers, in reporting the number 
of times States' lines have been crossed, show the highest median, 
Southern whites a slightly lower median, and Negroes the lowest median 
of all. On the other hand, between eight and nine out of ten farmers 
in each sample population have never moved across a State line. Not 
uncommonly, a farmer can move long distances without crossing State 
lines, but in the regions we are considering he can hardly do so with¬ 
out crossing county lines. The importance of short-distance moves is 
thus again emphasized, 

By way of summarizing the lifetime migration and movement re¬ 
ported by all the farmers, we may say that well over half of them are 
still living in the county in which they were born. About one-third of 
the Negro farmers and one-fifth of the white farmers. North and South, 
continue to live in the State, but not the county, of their birth. 
Eight percent of the Negro farmers, three times that proportion of 
Southern white, and twice as many Northern farmers now live in a State 
other than the one in which they were born (Table 29). The rural South 
contains fewer recent immigrants than any other part of the country, and, 
therefore, it is not surprising to find the proportion of foreign-born 


Table 29.- Percentages of farmers whose present residence 
as compared with place of birth is same county, same 
State, other State, and foreign country 


Place of birth 

• 

• 

: Northern 

• • 

• • 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

County of present residence 

56.8 

53.9 

60.5 

Other county in State of 

present residence 

20.5 

22.7 

31.6 

State other than present 

residence 

17.9 

23.2 

7.9 

Foreign country 

4.8 

.2 

— 

Total number reporting 

687 

894 

842 







- 44 - 


much larger in the Northern than in the Southern sample population. Not 
one person of foreign birth was found in the entire sample of Negro 
farmers. 

The final topic in this section is that of urban-rural migration. 
Most of our farmers were born on the farm. Only one in a hundred Negro 
farmers, three in a hundred Southern white, and eight in a hundred North¬ 
ern farmers were not born on farms. The proportion of all the farmers 
in our sample population who report migration of this type is relatively 
unimportant. 


Group Life 11/ 

If you should take the time to list the organized groups of 
all kinds which at one time or another have played an important role 
in your own life - the societies, associations, fraternities, clubs, 
lodges, leagues, cooperatives, unions, and so on - you would readily 
agree to the need for testing our three sample populations with respect 
to the similarity of their organized group life. 

If we ask the Northern farmer or his wife how many organized 
group memberships were held on the average by all members of the family, 
we find the number to be nearly eight. Among Southern white families 
it is not quite seven, and among Negro families it is less than six 
(Table 30). 


Table 30.- Average number of memberships and average maximum 
attendance per family in all organizations 


Item 

: Northern 

• • 

# • 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

Average number of 

memberships 

7.7 

6.6 

5.7 

Average maximum 

attendance 

72.6 

64.1 

50.3 

Total number reporting 

138 

138 

167 


These sample population differences become much less pronounced 
when the difference in size of families is partially eliminated, for, 


11/ All the data in this section are based on the long-schedule sample 
populations. 







- 45 - 


as you will recall, Northern families were smallest and Southern white 
families were largest. In order to do this, we have classified as "small 
families" those which consist of one or two persons 10 years of age or 
over. "Medium-sized families" are comprised of three or four such 
persons, and "large families" of five or more. Members of the family 
who are not now living at home are not included in these figures; neither 
are members of the household other than parents and children. Although 
we find that sample population differences still remain, the differences 
between categories based on family size prove to be much the greater, 
there being more organization membership in the larger families. Further¬ 
more, so far as small families are concerned, Negro farm families have 
even more organization memberships than do Southern white families. 
Regardless of family size, however, the average number of memberships 
in all organizations is much larger among Northern families than among 
Southern Negro families (Fig, 10). 

Although the average number of memberships per family gives 
some idea of the degree to which farm families take part in organized 
group life, it is by no means the only method of measurement. If we 
are interested in the maximum degree of participation, we may inquire 
somewhat as follows: "Of all the members of your family who belong 
to this particular organization, which person attends meetings of the 
organization most frequently? How often did he or she attend during 
the past year?" Adding these maximum attendance figures for each or¬ 
ganization to which members of a family belong, combining these totals 
for all families, and dividing by the number of families involved, 
we get what may be termed an index of maximum participation. This 
method of comparison shows an even greater difference between Negro 
and Southern white families than did the comparison involving membership, 
while the difference between Northern and Southern white families decreases 
slightly. The maximum participation by Northern farm families is almost 
one and one-half times that of Southern Negro farm families (Table 30). 

Again we find that average maximum attendance figures display 
differences in the sample populations between small and medium-sized 
families very similar to those found in the comparison of organization 
memberships. Among large families, however, the type of sample popu¬ 
lation differences previously found is even more pronounced. The average 
maximum number of contacts with organized groups is proportionately 
about three among Northern whites, and two among Southern whites, to one 
among Negroes (Fig. 10). We may conclude that Northern farm families 
either have the largest amount of available organizational contacts, or 
that they take advantage of those available relatively more fully, or 
that some combination of these conditions holds true. 

The final analysis dealing with organized group life is a com¬ 
parison of the average amounts of money per family contributed to or¬ 
ganizations of all types during the past year. The average amount per 
farm family contributed to all types of organizations is $20.59 a year 


AVERAGE 

NUMBER 



AV. NUMBER —►4.64 2.48 3.54 8.89 8.43 5.35 16.25 16.54 12.79 

SIZE OF FAMILY -► 1-2 3-4 5 AND OVER 


AVERAGE 

MAXIMUM 

NUMBER 


150 


100 


50 


0 



AV. MAX. NO. -► 48.9 

28.8 

37.4 

91.1 

90.8 

54.6 

201.4 131.2 69.7 

SIZE OF FAMILY 

-► 1-2 



3-4 


5 AND OVER 


\'//\ Northern Southern white m Negro 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 


NEG. 32727 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 


Figure 


10.- Average number of organization memberships and average 

MAXIMUM ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS OF ALL ORGANIZATIONS 
DURING PAST YEAR, BY SIZE OF FAMILY. 




















































































- 47.- 


in the North. Among Southern whites it is $9.80, and among Negroes, 
$7.97. These average amounts are distributed among several distinct 
types of organizations, but in each sample population by far the largest 
proportion of all contributions goes to religious organizations. About 
nine-tenths of all contributions in the South, both among whites and 
Negroes, and about eight-tenths in the North fall in this category. 
The contributions of Negroes- to fraternal organizations are relatively 
larger than those of farmers in either white sample population. The 
differences with respect to contributions to economic organizations are 
even more pronounced, for almost 7 percent of all contributions in the 
North go to organizations which aid the farmer economically - cooperative 
purchasing or marketing associations, for example. Among Southern whites 
the proportion contributed to organizations of the same type is only 
1 percent. Negroes contribute nothing. 

Organizations which aid the farmer in his occupation or train 
his children to become better farmers, such as the Farm Bureau, the 
Grange, or the Farmers' Union, receive greater financial support from 
farmers in the North than from those in the South. The differences which 
appear with respect to contributions to educational organizations are 
small and probably not significant. 

In brief, we may say that Northern farmers diversify with re¬ 
spect to their investments in organizations more largely than do South¬ 
ern farmers. Outside of religious organizations, those of a fraternal 
nature receive most emphasis in the South, but contributions to organi¬ 
zations of other types are negligible (Table 31). 


Table 31.- Average amounts paid per family and percentage distribution 
of all contributions to certain types of organizations 


Type of 
organization 

: Northern 

: Southern 

white : 

Negro 


: Amount : 

Percent 

: Amount: 

Percent: 

Amount: 

Percent 

Totals 

$20.59 

100.0 

$9.80 

100.0 

$7.97 

100.0 

Religious 

17.19 

83.5 

8.99 

91.7 

7.28 

91.4 

Educational 

.13 

.6 

.19 

2.0 

.05 

.6 

Occupational 

.91 

4.4 

.14 

1.4 

.05 

. 6 

Economic 

1.39 

6.7 

.10 

1.0 

— 

— 

Fraternal 

.98 

4.8 

.38 

3.9 

.59 

7.4 


The discussion up to this point has been confined to a consider¬ 
ation of participation in formally organized groups. Much social life. 







-48 - 


nowever, is carried on entirely without the machinery of formal organi¬ 
zations. Visiting and entertaining play important parts in the lives of 
most of us. But to say that informal social intercourse of this type is 
universal is not to say that it is exhibited to the same degree by all 
people. The average frequency of visiting during the past year as re¬ 
ported by white farmers in the South is twice that of Northern farmers. 
The frequency reported by Negro farmers is about midway between those of 
the two white sample populations (Table 32). Informal visiting decreases 
as the participation in formally organized groups increases. 


Table 32.- Average number of times during past year one or 
more members of family visited, or was visited by, 

friends and relatives 


Type of contact 

• 

: Northern 

• • 

• * 

; Southern white : 

Negro 

Visited 

24.5 

46.6 

34.3 

Was visited 

20.5 

46.5 

29.7 

Total cases of inter- 

family relationship 

677 

575 

828 


How does distance influence social intercourse between families? 
To answer this question all cases of inter-family contact were classi¬ 
fied by the distance separating the respective homes. In the first dis¬ 
tance category are placed all instances of inter-family social partici¬ 
pation in which the families involved live less than half a mile apart; 
in the second, the distance is one-half to nine-tenths of a mile; in the 
third, one to three miles; in the fourth, four to nine miles; and in 
the last, ten miles and over. 

About one-third of all cases of such relationships in the South 
fall in the first-mentioned category, that involving the smallest separ¬ 
ating distances. In the North, the proportion of instances in this dis¬ 
tance class is much smaller. The proportions of inter-family social 
participation which take place when the distance involved is ten miles 
or more vary even more strikingly between the sample populations. The 
fractions of all cases of informal relationships in this distance category 
are: one-fifth in the North, one-twentieth among Southern whites, and 
one one-hundredth among Negroes. 

In other words, distance as a factor affecting informal social 
intercourse between farm families is most important among Negroes, is 





- 49 - 


somewhat less significant among Southern whites, and is of least con¬ 
sequence among Northern families (Table 33). 


Table 33.- Average number of times during past year one or more members 
of family visited, or was visited by, friends and relatives, 
classified by distance between homes 


Distance 
between homes 

• 

• 

Number of cases 

• 

• 

Average number of times 

Northern: 

Less than 0.5 mile 

93 

13.8 

0.5 - 0.9 mile 

116 

17.3 

1-3 miles 

210 

31.3 

4-9 miles 

111 

16.6 

10 miles and more 

137 

20.4 

Southern white: 

Less than 0.5 mile 

178 

31.0 

0.5 - 0.9 mile 

113 

20.0 

1-3 miles 

179 

31.1 

4-9 miles 

69 

12.0 

10 miles and more 

29 

5.0 

Negro: 

Less than 0.5 mile 

305 

36.9 

0.5 - 0.9 mile 

181 

21.9 

1-3 miles 

266 

32.1 

4-9 miles 

34 

4.1 

10 miles and more 

9 

1.1 


Among most people, visiting together, regardless of time and 
place, is less likely to signify equivalence of social status than 
sharing a common meal. Accordingly, in addition to data on visiting, 
we secured information on the number of times members of our informants' 
families were guests or hosts during the past year on occasions when 
meals were involved in the entertainment. Although the differences 
between the sample populations are not very large, the traditional 
greater hospitality of the South is not borne out. Separating these 
data into two categories, those involving kinsfolk on the one hand and 
unrelated friends on the other, in each sample population the former 
appear to be entertained for meals far more often than the latter. 
This difference strongly supports the theory that, as a measure of 
intimacy, the exchanging of meals is more revealing than simple fre¬ 
quency of visiting. Friends other than relatives are entertained by 







ft 


- 50 - 


Negro families more often than by white families, either Northern or 
Southern (Table 34). 


Table 34.- Average number of times during past year one or 
more members of family entertained, or was entertained 


as 

guest for meal 



Type of contact 

• • 

• • 

: Northern : 

• 

• 

Southern white : 

Negro 

Was guest of friends and 

relatives 

6.4 

5.5 

6.0 

Was host to friends and 

relatives 

5.7 

4.9 

6.1 

Was host to friends 

3.0 

3.1 

5.4 

Was host to relatives 

10.0 

8.7 

8.7 

Total cases of inter-family 

relationship 

677 

575 

828 


The final type of informal inter-familial relationship to be 
considered is partly social and partly economic. The problem is this: 
how many times during the past year have members of the informant's 
family "swapped help," tools, work animals, and so on, with the families 
involved in other informal relationships? Such mutual aid, or coopera¬ 
tive exchange, takes place on the average practically three times as 
often among Northern as among Southern whites, and practically two times 
as often among Northern as among Negro families. The greater relative 
frequency of this type of relationship in the North is probably more sig¬ 
nificant, in view of the more frequent visiting reported by white fami¬ 
lies in the South (Table 35). 


Table 35.- Average number of times during past year farm 
operators' family exchanged tools and/or labor 


Item 

• 

• 

: Northern 

• • 

• • 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

Average number of times 

Total number of families with 

5.8 

1.9 

2.9 

which tools were exchanged 

602 

482 

729 


Our discussion of sample population differences with respect to 
social behavior would hardly be complete without a brief consideration 











- 51 - 


at least of the diverse types of social participation which do not fit 
into either of the two categories we have so far discussed. Differences 
of the most fundamental sort are found with respect to the frequency 
our informants report exercising the franchise; nine out of ten Northern, 
seven out of ten Southern white, and one out of ten Negro farmers report 
having voted during the "past year," that is, 1936 (Table 36). Payment 


Table 36.- Percentages of informants reporting participation 
during past year in one or more of the following types 

of activities 


Type of activity 

• 

• 

: Northern 

• • 

t • 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

Voted 

91.3 

71.0 

10.8 

Paid taxes 

95.7 

65.9 

45.5 

Attended: 




County fair 

45.7 

25.4 

18.6 

Movies 

78.3 

54.3 

19.8 

Picnic 

73.2 

36.9 

23.9 

Religious revival 

29.7 

65.9 

91.0 

Went fishing 

40.6 

51.4 

56.3 

Went hunting 

47.8 

56.5 

60.5 

Total number reporting 

138 

138 

167 


of taxes is reported relatively four times as often as voting 
by Negro farmers, while slightly fewer Southern white farmers have paid 
taxes than voted. Among Northern farmers, the taxpayers are some¬ 
what more frequent than the voters, 96 percent reporting payment of taxes 
against 91 percent reporting voting (Table 36). The functions of citizen¬ 
ship, evidently, are exercised with relatively the greatest frequency 
by Northern farmers, with somewhat less frequency by Southern whites, 
and with the least frequency by Negroes. 

The institution known as the County Fair is probably more charac¬ 
teristic of the Corn Belt than of the South. It may be worth pointing 
out, however, that practically one-half of the Northern, one-fourth 
of the Southern white, and one-fifth of the Negro farm families report 
one or more members attending a county fair during the past year (Table 
36). 


Family picnicking, to even a more marked degree, seems to be a 
Northern institution: roughly three-fourths of Northern families, one- 
third of Southern white, and one-fourth of Negro families report taking 
part in this type of informal recreation (Table 36). 





- 52 - 


Attendance at movies is reported by a majority of white farm fami¬ 
lies, both Northern and Southern, and by a minority of Negroes: roughly 
four-fifths of Northern, one-half of Southern white, and one-fifth of 
Negro families contain one or more members who enjoyed this type of re¬ 
creation one or more times during the preceding year (Table 36). 

To infer from the foregoing comparisons that Southern farm fami¬ 
lies have less recreation, or get less joy out of life, than do those in 
the North would be far from valid. Both hunting and fishing, while prob¬ 
ably not without their economic aspects, are reported relatively most 
frequently by Negroes, less frequently by Southern whites, and least fre¬ 
quently by Northern farm families (Table 36). 

Religious revivals, furthermore, with their important social as 
well as spiritual aspects, are attended more often by Southern farm fami¬ 
lies than by those in the North. Negroes even outstrip Southern whites in 
this type of social participation, for attendance is reported by 91 per¬ 
cent of the former and only 66 percent of the latter. Northern farm 
families lag far behind in this type of group activity, for only 30 per¬ 
cent of them report attendance at revival meetings (Table 36). 

Whatever you may consider to be the causes of the foregoing sample- 
population differences with respect to the miscellaneous types of social 
participation, it is enough for our purposes to indicate that the differ¬ 
ences exist, and that whatever tenure-class differences later appear, 
they must be considered with this background in mind. 


Levels and Standards of Living 12/ 

If you were to make a trip through the central part of the United 
States, going South from Canada to the Gulf, you would find that the 
appearances of the farmsteads would change almost completely as you left 
the Corn Belt and entered the Cotton Belt. Making the trip in a leisure¬ 
ly fashion and stopping occasionally to visit the farm homes along the 
way, you would find that they differ significantly not only in external 
appearances, but in contents as well. Although there would be many an 
exception to whatever generalization you should care to make, neverthe¬ 
less the statement that the modes of living in the two areas are sharply 
divergent would probably be challenged by no properly informed person. 
But before going into the details, with respect to the dissimilarities, 
a few preliminary remarks should be made. 

There is often a wide discrepancy between what people would like 
to be and what they are, between what they would like to have and what 


12 / With the exception of the last four paragraphs, all the data in this 
section are based on the long-schedule sample populations. 




- 53 - 


they actually do possess. In the following discussion we shall use the 
terra "level of living" to refer to the things that people have and the 
things they do, and to the amount of money they have to spend - in other 
words, to the. actual conditions of their income and expenditures. The 
term "standard of living," on the other hand, we shall restrict in 
meaning to the things that people want, to what they think they should 
have, and to their aspirations with respect to modes of living. These 
two types of information, the objective and the subjective, are thoroughly 
complementary, and either one without the other is likely to prove much 
less illuminating than when they are presented together. Accordingly we 
shall present both types in the discussion that follows. 

One further prefatory point should be emphasized: to point out 
differences concerning levels or standards of living is not to say that 
one type is better than the other. Some people prefer vanilla ice cream, 
others prefer chocolate, while still others don't care for either, but 
this is hardly to say that any one of these groups is better off than 
another. But if some of the people who like ice cream are able to have it 
when they please, and others, liking it equally well, are never able to 
satisfy this taste, it would seem reasonable to say that the members of 
the former group, in terms of their own desires , were better off than the 
latter. To say this is not to make a judgment, but involves merely the 
assumption that those people are best off whose wants are most completely 
satisfied. Accordingly, when it is pointed out subsequently that some 
farmers seem better off than others, only in the foregoing sense is it 
justifiable to say that they are "better off." 

Among the various indices used in measuring levels of living one 
of the most important is the house in which a family lives. Of the many 
characteristics of houses which might be considered we can take up but a 
few. One of these is external appearance. Even from a distance, obvious 
differences are revealed, for you will quickly observe that in the North 
painted frame houses predominate whereas in the South unpainted houses 
are the rule (Table 37). 

If we compare preferences, however, instead of actual possessions, 
we find that the long-lasting brick house is wanted by farmers much 
oftener than would be evident from the frequency with which brick houses 
are to be seen on farms. This is true regarding all three of our sample 
populations. It should be noted in passing that in our sample the pro¬ 
portion of painted frame houses occupied by white farm families in the 
South is about three times as great (50 percent) as that occupied by 
Negroes (14 percent), and that the proportion of unpainted frame houses 
is about twice as great among Negroes (86 percent) as among whites 
(48 percent). The painted wooden house is the preference of the majority, 
however, regardless of region or race (Table 37). 

If you were to visit inside these houses, you would find that the 
number of rooms per house, a figure which usually indicates something 



- 54 - 


Table 37.- Percentages of families reporting which of 
specified housing items they now have, and which 
they prefer to have 1/ 



: Northern 

Southern white : 

Negro 

Housing items 

: Now : 

: have : Prefer 

Now : : 

have : Prefer : 

Now : 

have : Prefer 


House finish: 


Brick 

5 

35 

— 

38 

— 

32 

Painted frame 

89 

64 

50 

51 

14 

62 

Unpainted frame 

6 

- 

48 

4 

86 

5 

Heating system: 

Furnace 

20 

83 

— 

18 

— 

14 

Heating stove 

80 

17 

48 

26 

33 

29 

Fireplace 

— 

— 

46 

38 

66 

47 

Lighting system: 

Electricity 

28 

97 

14 

88 

1 

64 

Gasoline 

11 

1 

2 

2 

1 

6 

Kerosene 

59 

1 

80 

9 

98 

29 

Water supply: 

Running water 

16 

89 

8 

71 

1 

56 

Hand pump 

69 

5 

19 

3 

27 

6 

Open well 

1 

— 

64 

16 

55 

26 

Toilet facilities: 

Indoor toilet 

15 

98 

4 

66 

— 

52 

Sanitary privy 

13 

2 

23 

25 

5 

45 

Unimproved privy 

72 

— 

71 

6 

60 

2 

No toilet facilities 

— 

— 

— 

— 

32 

— 

1/ Percentages for items 

not 

listed for 

cases not 

reporting are 

omitted. 


Table 38.- Average number of persons 

of rooms per house 

per household, and 


Item 

• • 

• • 

: Northern : 

• 

• 

Southern white : 

Negro 

Persons per household 

3.6 

4.2 

4.4 

Rooms per house 

6.8 

4.6 

3.2 



















- 55 


of the scale of comfort enjoyed by the resident family or household, 
varies considerably. In fact, the average number of rooms in the houses 
comprising our Corn-Belt sample (6.8) is over twice as great as that we 
found in the houses of Negroes in the South (3.2) ,the figure for houses 
of Southern whites being almost midway between the other two sample 
populations (4.6) but closer to that of Negroes than that of Northern 
whites (Table 38). 

When number of persons per household is related to number of rooms 
per house, the relative crowding of Negro families is brought out more 
clearly. In the North the ratio of rooms per house to persons per house¬ 
hold is nearly 2 to 1, among Southern whites there is little more than 1 
room per person, and among Negroes there is even less than 1 room per 
person. It is probable that if arithmetic averages had been used instead 
of medians, the contrast would have been even greater because of the 
greater weight that would have been given to large houses in the North 
and to large families in the South (Table 38). 

Turning your attention next to the contents of the houses you would 
notice that these vary even more widely than the exteriors. Beginning 
with the types of heating equipment, for example, you would find that one 
out of every five Northern farm houses contained a furnace in the base¬ 
ment, and that the remaining four out of the five were supplied with a 
heating stove somewhere in the house. A fireplace for heating purposes 
would be found but rarely. In the South, on the other hand, fireplaces as 
the chief means of heating would be found in two-thirds of the Negro 
houses, or "cabins" as they are more commonly called, and in almost one- 
half of white farmers' houses (Table 37). 

Although furnaces are very rare in Southern houses, this fact 
may not be so significant as is sometimes claimed. Treatments of differ¬ 
ences between Southern and Northern modes of living, especially by 
Northern urban writers, too often disparage the Southern type as the less 
desirable or inferior. In warmer areas elaborate heating equipment is 
less imperative than it is in colder climates. It is true, however, that 
our sample areas include some territory in the Cotton Belt that has 
long, cold winters, and the contrast between North and South with respect 
to types of heating systems possessed is not entirely without signif¬ 
icance. Furthermore, although preferences for furnaces are much more 
frequent in the North than in the South, it should not be overlooked 
that in the South, both among the whites and Negroes, a considerable 
fraction of our informants express a wish for furnaces. 

If you should continue your jounrey to the Gulf after sundown, 
you would notice marked differences in the types of lighting systems 
used in the various farm houses. You would not be able to tell with any 
degree of certainty, however, by the quality of the light streaming from 
the farmhouse windows whether you were in the Corn Belt or the Cotton 
Belt, whether you were looking at a Negro cabin or a white farmer’s 
dwelling. Kerosene lamps are used in a large majority of the homes. 


- 56 - 


About six out of ten Northern farmers, eight out of ten Southern white, 
and ninety-eight out of one hundred Negro farmers utilize no other type 
of lighting equipment. On the other hand, electricity is used by 2d 
percent of the Northern, 14 percent of the Southern white, and about 1 per¬ 
cent of the Negro farmers. If we compare level of living with standard of 
living in this respect, we find almost unanimous agreement among Northern 
farmers that they want electricity; nearly all Southern white, and a- 
bout two-thirds of the Negro farmers want this convenience (Table 37) , 

If the radiator of your car were to run dry in the course of this 
trip and you wanted to fill it at a. farm house, you would find running 
water at the farm houses of Northern farmers about twice as often as at 
those of white farmers in the South, and you would find it only in one out 
of every hundred homes of Negro farmers. More often than not at the 
Southern farmhouse, both white and Negro, you would get your water from 
an open well, pulling up the modern metallic descendant of the celebrated 
"Old Oaken Bucket." Such an open well would be rare in the Northern 
farmyard, but about two times out of three you would find a hand pump. 
In the remaining one out of three you would find power pumps and pressure 
systems to supply the water (Table 37). 

Another important element in housing, though unquestionably it is 
more significant in cities and towns than in the open country, is the 
matter of sanitation facilities. About two-thirds of all farm homes, 
both North and South, white and Negro, have the old-fashioned, unimproved 
privy. It may be shocking to learn, however, that for practically one- 
third of the Negro families in our sample no toilet facilities in either 
house or outhouse are available. This difference alone should serve to 
set apart the level of living of the Negro families from that of the 
white families in the South, as this complete absence of toilet facili¬ 
ties was not encountered in a single instance among the whites. Neither 
was any such total lack of conveniences found anywhere in the North. 
At least one-half of the informants in each sample population express a 
preference for an indoor toilet, but the proportion rises sharply as 
we go from Southern to Northern farmers (Table 37). 

In view of the extensive program of rural housing undertaken by 
the Farm Security Administration (formerly Resettlement Administration), 
and the consequent need for information as to how houses should be built 
and what they should contain, it is of interest to learn the preferences 
expressed by farm housewives when a limited number of alternatives is 
given. Our question was worded as follows: "If you could have only one 
of these things which would you prefer?" The first set of alternatives 
listed was: kitchen sink with drain, running water in the house, and in¬ 
door toilet. Running water in the house clearly is the first choice in 
the case of white housewives, but for Negroes this item is less popular 
than the kitchen sink with a drain. In all three sample populations, 
the indoor toilet lags far behind as the first choice among these alter¬ 
natives. Among possessions it will be seen that the kitchen sink with 


- 57 - 


a drain is available to one-half of Northern farm housewives, while 
only about one-eighth of the Southern white, and one one-hundredth of 
the Negro housewives are similarly supplied (Table 39), 


Table 39.- Percentages of families who possess or have avail¬ 
able for use specified items; and percentages of house¬ 
wives expressing preference for one in each group 

of three items 



Northern 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

Item : 

Now : 

have : 

: Now 

Prefer: have 

• • 

: Prefer : 

Now 

have 

• 

• 

:Prefer 

Fixtures: 







Running water 

20 

48 

10 

62 

1 

35 

Kitchen sink with drain 

53 

33 

12 

28 

1 

43 

Indoor toilet 

15 

19 

4 

11 

— 

22 

Moveable equipment: 







Sewing machine 

93 

20 

72 

56 

50 

64 

Washing machine 

75 

69 

7 

15 

1 

14 

Ice box or refrigerator 

42 

12 

28 

29 

10 

21 

Total number of 







families 

138 

138 

138 

138 

167 

167 

Another method of comparing 

the 

sample 

populations 

with 

respect 

to possession of the items 

listed 

is to combine all cases 

that 

report 

none of the three just mentioned. 

The 

similarity between 

the 

propor- 

tions falling in this category in 

the white and colored groups 

in the 

South is considerable, the 

percentages 

being 

nearly twice 

as great as 

in the North (Table 40). 







Table 40.- Percentage 

of families 

failing to report or not 


possessing running water, kitchen sink, 

or indoor toilet 


Item 


: Northern : 

• 

• 

Southern white : 

Negro 


Percentage failing to 
report or not possessing 

specified items 47.8 82.6 98.2 


Total number of families 


138 


138 


167 
















- 58 - 


The second set of three alternatives was as follows: sewing 
machine, washing machine, and refrigerator. The difference between re¬ 
sponses in the North and in the South is again sharply contrasting. 
The washing machine is preferred to sewing machine or refrigerator by 
seven out of ten Northern housewives as compared with about one out of 
eight in the South. The sewing machine, on the other hand, is preferred 
by over one-half of the Southern housewives, both white and Negro. 
Preference for an ice box or refrigerator is expressed by about one- 
third of the Southern white housewives, and by one-tenth of the Northern 
housewives. In spite of the potentially greater usefulness of the 
refrigerator in the South, however, it is possessed by only three-fourths 
as many Southern white, and one-fourth as many Negro families as in the 
North (Table 39). 

So far we have been considering only the kitchen and workroom. 
Now let us go into the parlor and see what is preferred in the way of 
musical instruments. The piano is given as first choice by so large a 
proportion of Northern housewives that it seems to be considered standard 
equipment. In the South, Negro and white housewives disagree radically, 
the former preferring the phonograph more often than the piano, and the 
latter preferring the piano more often than the phonograph. But in 
neither of the Southern population groups is the majority so nearly 
unanimous as in the North. The foot-pedaled cottage-organ has disappear¬ 
ed. No longer is it owned or wanted by any significant proportion of the 
farm population, North or South. Pianos are possessed about twice as 
often by Northern as by Southern white families, about one in five of the 
latter and two in five of the former reporting such ownership. Among 
Negro farm families, only one in one hundred has a piano. The phonograph 
appears less frequently than the piano in the North and considerably more 
frequently than the piano in the South (Table 41). 

Fundamental differences between life in town and in the country 
arise out of the greater degree of isolation in the latter, the absence 
of social contacts outside the family, and the spatial separation from 
other people and their activities. Accordingly, any invention that breaks 
down this isolation of the rural family is of tremendous significance to 
the rural population. Therefore, it is important to learn the frequency 
with which the telephone and the radio are found in the farm families of 
the three sample populations. 

Almost two-thirds of Northern farm families reduce the degree of 
their isolation by means of the telephone. In the South, however, the 
frequency is almost negligible, less than one in twenty among white and 
one in one hundred among Negro families reporting this means of com¬ 
munication. The radio appears much more often in the South than the 
telephone does. Likewise, the relative disparity between South and North 
is much less marked with regard to the radio. Even so, only 2 percent 
of the Negro and 33 percent of the Southern white, and 72 percent of 
Northern families receive the advantage conferred by a radio (Table 41). 


- 59 - 


Table 41,- Percentages of families who possess or make use of 
specified items; and percentages of housewives expressing 
preferences for one in each group of items 



: Northern :Southern white: 

Negro 

Item 

: Now : : Now : : 

: have :Prefer: have :Prefer : 

Now 

have :Prefer 


Musical instruments: 


Piano 

43 

84 

17 

56 

2 

36 

Organ 

4 

1 

10 

6 

2 

4 

Phonograph 

27 

11 

29 

22 

18 

58 

Means of communication: 

Telephone 

59 

44 

4 

18 

1 

28 

Radio 

72 

55 

33 

79 

2 

71 

Publications: 

Daily newspaper 

91 

68 

49 

43 

13 

66 

Weekly newspaper 

66 

1 

30 

2 

48 

3 

Farm periodical 

80 

1 

52 

12 

22 

17 

Religious periodical 

19 

1 

17 

1 

25 

10 

Means of transportation: 

Automobile 

91 

96 

46 

82 

10 

81 

Wagon or buggy 

4 

3 

22 

7 

23 

13 

None (walk) 

5 

1 

20 

2 

53 

2 

Insurance: 

Life 

59 

36 

37 

62 

17 

62 

Burial 

4 

4 

14 

4 

44 

27 

Personal property 

77 

14 

2 

— 

2 

2 

Farm buildings 

50 

17 

9 

1 

2 

1 

Total number of families 

reporting 


138 


138 


167 


When we change the question from one of possessions to one of 
preferences, we find that similarity finally appears between the three 
sample populations: a majority in all three instances prefers the radio 
to the telephone. If the farm people we interviewed are at all repre¬ 
sentative, there is a vast, undeveloped market for the radio throughout 
the rural South. Similarly, the telephone has vast potentialities in 
this area, but the people concerned do not wish for it so keenly as they 
want the radio (Table 41). 












- 60 - 


Long before the coming of radio or telephone, the isolation of 
rural people was reduced by means of publications of various types. 
Sometimes, to be sure, they arrived long after the events they described 
had taken place, but within the memory of most living farmers Rural Free 
Delivery of mail came to reduce the lag. In spite of this advance, 
however, a daily newspaper is received by only one-half of the Southern 
white families and by about one-tenth of the Southern Negro families, 
both of which groups express preferences for this type of publication 
far more often than for any other. In the North nine out of ten farm 
families take a daily newspaper, and the preference expressed is largely 
for this type of publication (Table 41). 

Religious periodicals are both received and chosen as first prefer¬ 
ence with greater frequency by Negroes than by whites, either North or 
South. The relative position of the three sample populations concerning 
publications received may be summarized by the proportion of families who 
receive neither newspaper nor farm periodical, This is true of less than 
1 percent of Northern, 23 percent of Southern white, and 70 percent of 
Negro farm families. 

Most important after improved means of communication in reducing 
isolation are improved means of transportation. The automobile is 
credited by some people as having remade American civilization, by others 
as having unmade it. But whether for good or for evil, the automobile 
and good roads have revolutionized the relationships between city and 
country. It might be more accurate to say that they have worked a 
revolution in the North and are doing so in the South, for, on the basis 
of our sample, Northern farm families have an automobile available for 
use nine times out of ten, while less than one-half of Southern white, and 
only one in ten of the colored farm families are equipped in like fashion. 

When preferences for the automobile as a means of transportation 
are compared with preferences for other means, however, other means 
evidently have very few friends left. Even so, there remain a few farm 
people who say they prefer the horse-drawn wagon or buggy. It seems 
probable that the explanation for this preference is either that the 
persons involved are too old to learn to drive an automobile or that 
they are making a virtue of necessity. 

One further point should be made. Over one-half of the Negro 
families interviewed report that when they want to go places they walk. 
Twenty percent of the Southern white families say the same thing, but 
only 5 percent of Northern families suffer a like disadvantage (Table 41). 

It is self-evident that earthbound means of transportation can 
go no faster or more easily than roads permit. Accordingly, it is 
significant to note that the type of road most commonly used by over 
one-half of the Southern farm families is a dirt road. Four out of every 


- 61 - 


five Northern farm families, on the other hand, because of improved roads, 
do not need to worry whether it is going to rain or not when they want 
to go to town to take in the eggs and get some kerosene, to hear the mid- 
week evening band concert, go to church, or visit the retired "old folks." 

Northern farm families more frequently carry insurance of almost 
every type here considered than do Southern farm families. Burial in¬ 
surance, on the other hand, is reported by Southern white farm families 
four times as frequently as by Northern families. The proportions of 
Negroes who report having, and who express a preference for, this type of 
protection are much larger than the comparable proportions of whites. 
Southern farm families infrequently report, or express preferences for, 
insurance on personal property. Life insurance, on the other hand, is 
something which two out of three Southern farm families want, although 
they receive such protection in only a minority of cases (Table 41). 

Insurance policies represent "coverage" of one type, but there is 
another type of coverage that is generally less desirable, namely, the 
mortgage. It is self-evident that the type of mortgage appropriate to 
the landowner is not suitable in the case of the non-owner. Therefore 
the proportion of farmers reporting mortgages on livestock, crops, or 
farm machinery is somewhat influenced by the proportion of operators who 
do not own farm land. Disregarding tenure class influences, it is true 
that for every Northern farmer who reports such mortgage indebtedness 
there are two white farmers in the South, and nearly four Negro farmers. 
(Table 42). 


Table 42.- Percentages of owners reporting mortgage indebted¬ 
ness on land, and percentages of farmers (excluding farm 
laborers) reporting mortgage indebtedness on crops, 
livestock, or farm machiinery 


Tenure and type of mortgage 

• • 

: Northern : 

• 

• 

Southern white : 

Negro 

Total number of owners 

350 

391 

127 

Percent reporting 
mortgage on land 

49 

40 

38 

Total number of farmers 

618 

841 

753 

Percent reporting mortgages 
on crops, livestock, or 
farm machinery 

15 

27 

54 










- 62 - 


If we take up mortgage indebtendess on land, on the other hand, 
we find the situation just reversed. Nevertheless, the decrease in 
frequency of these mortgages as we go from North to South is rela¬ 
tively less marked than was the increase, in the reverse order, of 
mortgages on property other than land. In the South, among both Negro 
and white owners, about four out of ten report mortgages on land, as 
compared with five out of ten in the North (Table 42). 

Finally, let us consider the economic plant which the farmer 
operates: the land, the livestock, and so on. The Negro farm con¬ 
tains, on the average, about one-third as much acreage as that of the 
white farmer in the South, and one-fifth as much as that of the Northern 
farmer. Since this acreage includes land that is both productive and 
unproductive, it is interesting to compare the crop land acreage of these 
same farms. For every acre of crop land operated by the Negro farmer, 
the Southern white farmer operates about two and one-half acres and the 
Northern farmer operates four (Table 43). If we were attempting to make 
an economic investigation, this point would deserve much more extended 
treatment than is here possible. 


Table 43.- Average total acreage and average crop acreage 

per farm 


Item 

• 

• 

; Northern 

• • 

• . • 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

Average total acreage 

152 

104 

35 

Average crop acreage 

102 

63 

27 

Total number of cases 

687 

894 

842 


What the farm provides in the way of a good living is often 

emphasized by agrarians and other people who prefer the rural life. 

Another measure, although admittedly very inadequate, may nevertheless 
serve to throw some further light on the differences in the modes of 
living among the farmers in our three sample populations. The question 
raised is. What proportion of families possess 100 or more chickens? 
This number is reported by about 2 percent of the Negroes, about 16 per¬ 
cent of the Southern whites, and 75 percent of the Northern farm fami¬ 
lies. It is easy to imagine what this difference means in terms of 
eggs and Sunday chicken dinners throughout the year. 

As a crude index of the level of living afforded by the farm, 
not in the way of home-consumed products, but of those that are sold 

for cash, gross income will serve. Although expenditures for seed, 

fertilizer, livestock, and equipment for running the farm are not excluded 





- 63 - 


from this figure, it is considered a significant sidelight on differences 
between our sample populations. The median income among the Negro farm 
families in our sample is $244.63; among Southern whites, it is $459.84; 
and among Northern farmers, it is $1,337.84. The median income from 
colored farmers is 53 percent of that for Southern whites, while the fig¬ 
ure for Northern whites is 291 percent of that for Southern whites. 
In other words, the median gross income reported by Northern farmers is 
roughly three times that of white farmers in the South, while the figure 
for Negro farmers is roughly one-half as large as that for Southern white 
farmers and less than one-fifth of that for families in the North. 
That these differences are important can hardly be questioned, but, as in 
the case of the crop acreage figures, we shall refrain from going into 
their economic implications. Instead, we shall turn to the socio- 
psychological aspects of tenure differences within the three sample 
populations. 


- 64 - 


Chapter III 

ATTITUDES AND OPINIONS; WHAT DO FARMERS THINK ABOUT FARM PROBLEMS? 

Desirability of Farm Ownership 

In the preceding chapter we have discussed some of the differences 
in thinking that are apparent among the farmers in the North and the 
colored and white farmers in the South. In this chapter, although we do 
not want to lose sight of the fact that region and race do affect atti¬ 
tudes and ideas, we shall consider chiefly how the various tenure classes 
as defined in Chapter I differ in thought and feeling. 

The first question to be considered is this; What do owners have 
to say about the desirability of farm ownership? Owners, you will recall, 
have been divided into three classes - landlords, part-owners, and full 
owners. The large majority in all three of these categories feel that 
they are better off than non-owners; but it is worth noticing that the 
proportion in each tenure class who do not feel better off from a business 
point of view is larger in the Northern group than in either of the 
Southern groups (Table 44) . 


Table 44.- Percentages of owners who feel better off or do not feel 
better off from a business point of view; and who think 
that they are or are not respected more as owners than 

they would be as renters 1/ 



• 

Northern ; 

Southern white 


Negro 


Response 

Land-: 

lord ;Owner: 

Part ;Land- 
owner ; lord 

;Owner 

Part 

owner 

Land¬ 

lord 

• • 

; Owner: 

Part 

owner 

Business point 
of view; 

Feel better 
off 

67.3 

77.9 

71.9 

81.5 

81.5 

82.9 

81.3 

79.2 

89.5 

Uncertain 

21.8 

12.8 

12.5 

8.7 

10.5 

7.3 

3.1 

10.4 

— 

Do not feel 
better off 

9.1 

4.0 

13.5 

3.1 

3.7 

4.9 

— 

1.3 

5.3 

Respect received 
Respected more 

35.5 

48.3 

41.7 

75.9 

80.2 

68.3 

71.9 

80.5 

89.5 

Uncertain 

27.3 

23.5 

25.0 

9.7 

12.3 

17.1 

12.5 

6,5 

5.3 

Not respected 

more 

35.5 

22.8 

31.3 

7.7 

3.1 

9.8 

— 

3.9 

— 

1/ Omitting percentage 

for 

those 

who 

did not respond. 

For 

totals 


representing 100 percent, see Appendix, p. 251. 











- 65 - 


When we shift the emphasis of the question from the business ad¬ 
vantages of ownership to advantages of a more subtle sort - to the social 
prestige which the owner feels he receives because of his ownership, for 
instance - we find greater differences appearing among the three sub¬ 
classes of owners. Of farmers who definitely think they are more highly 
respected as a result of their status as owners, the largest proportion 
appears in the full-owner class, except among Negroes. In other words, 
full owners when compared with part-owners or landlords seem to feel 
greater assurance that ownership contributes to their prestige. Similarly, 
the smallest proportion who say they are not respected more as owners 
than they would be as non-owners, especially among, white farmers, is 
found within the category of full owners (Table 44). 

As we are more concerned with the problem of making non-owners into 
owners than we are with analyzing the characteristics of present owners, 
it is interesting to discover what the various classes of non-owners have 
to say about ownership. Specifically, the first question to be con¬ 
sidered is, "Do you think you would feel better off if you owned this 
farm but had a mortgage on it?" Among Southern farmers, regardless of 
tenure class, a larger proportion of non-owners think they would be 
better off as owners, even with mortgages, than not. Among Northern 
non-owners, on the contrary, there are more who think they would not be 
better off as mortgaged owners. In fact, the differences between South¬ 
ern and Northern farmers seem to be more significant than the differences 
between the tenure classes concerned. 

But when non-owners are subdivided on the one hand into those 
who deal with relatives either as landlords or employers, and on the 
other hand into those who deal with other than kinsfolk, we find an 
interesting difference. In the South, both among whites and Negroes, 
farmers dealing with non-relatives are more frequently sure that they 
would be better off as owners than as renters, a smaller number saying 
they would not be better off as mortgaged owners. In other words, the 
Southerner who is renting from a relative finds less to gain as an owner 
than does the man who is dealing with a non-relative. This attitude does 
not exist in the North, however, for there the related non-owner feels 
optimistic about mortgaged ownership slightly more often than does the 
unrelated non-owner. 

However, both North and South are consistent in that the proportion 
of those who assert they would not be better off as mortgaged owners is 
significantly larger among related non-owners. In other words, the fore¬ 
going generalizations regarding the relative advantages of ownership for 
related and non-related renters are similar, regardless of race or region 
(Table 45). 

Passing from the question of mortgaged ownership and raising the 
general question, "Do you think owners generally feel better off than 
renters?" we find that the proportion answering "Yes" is significantly 


- 66 - 


Table 45.- Percentages of all non-owners, classified by tenure and 
kinship to landlord, who think they would or would not be 
better off if they were mortgaged owners 1/ 


Item 

: Better off 

• 

: Uncertain 

• 

• 

: Not better off 

Northern: 

Tenants 2/ 

31.1 

26.6 

40.7 

Laborers 

29.0 

24.6 

42.0 

Related non-owners 

32.6 

15.1 

51.2 

Unrelated non-owners 

30.1 

30.1 

37.4 

Southern white: 

Renters 

62.4 

16.1 

20.4 

Croppers 

43.8 

13.7 

36.3 

Laborers 

56.6 

15.1 

17.0 

Related non-owners 

51.0 

14.4 

34.6 

Unrelated non-owners 

58.8 

15.3 

23.0 

Negro: 

Renters 

79.8 

5.9 

13.4 

Croppers 

74.5 

9.4 

15.1 

Laborers 

55.1 

13.5 

21.3 

Related non-owners 

55.3 

13.1 

31.6 

Unrelated non-owners 

75.0 

8.4 

14.3 


1/ Omitting percentages for cases not reporting. 

2/ Because the number of croppers in the North is so small, and because 
in many respects they are more similar to renters than laborers in the 
North, they have been combined in this table, and in many which follow, 
as tenants. 


larger than that definitely answering "No." Renters more frequently 
than laborers reply affirmatively to this inquiry. Among the white far¬ 
mers in the South, croppers more often than laborers believe that owners 
feel better off; but among the Negroes, the proportion of croppers hold¬ 
ing this opinion falls between that of renters and laborers. As in the 
case of the preceding question, however, the responses here seem to indi¬ 
cate a more significant difference between the non-owners in the North 
and those in the South than between the various tenure classes involved 
in each sample population. Northern non-owners are much less certain, 
relatively, than Southern non-owners that ownership will guarantee those 
feelings of peace and security that most people want (Table 46). 

What happens when we separate all non-owners into those related 
and those unrelated to the landlord? In such a division it is found 
that renters and laborers who deal with relatives, at least among white 





- 67 - 


Table 46.- Percentages of all non-owners, classified by tenure 
and kinship to landlord, who think that owners do or 
do not feel better off than renters 1 / 


Item 

: Better off 

: Uncertain 

: Not better off 

Northern: 

Tenants 

65.0 

24.3 

9.1 

Laborers 

56.5 

23.2 

15.9 

Related non-owners 

67.4 

19.8 

11.6 

Unrelated non-owners 

61.8 

25.6 

10.2 

Southern white: 

Renters 

82.8 

11.3 

4.7 

Croppers 

86.9 

9.5 

2.4 

Laborers 

79.2 

3.8 

5.7 

Related non-owners 

90.4 

4.8 

4.8 

Unrelated non-owners 

82.1 

11.3 

3.8 

Negro: 

Renters 

96.8 

0.8 

1.6 

Croppers 

92.7 

4.8 

1.3 

Laborers 

84.3 

3.4 

2.2 

Related non-owners 

92.1 

7.9 

— 

Unrelated non-owners 

93.1 

3.0 

1.6 


1/ Omitting percentages for cases not reporting. 


farmers, are certain that owners feel better off than renters more often 
than are those who deal with non-relatives. The proportion of Negro non- 
owners, both related and unrelated, who think that owners feel better off 
than renters is so large that there is little room for a difference be¬ 
tween these two groups (Table 46). 

What do the responses to these two questions mean? It seems that 
renters dealing with relatives are identifying themselves so closely with 
the owning group that, although they can say that owners feel better off 
than non-owners, they can see less advantage to themselves in becoming 
mortgaged owners. They seem to feel that they already enjoy the chief 
advantages of ownership without suffering the pangs that usually go with 
a heavy mortgage hanging round one's neck. 

Nevertheless, when we raise the question "Are you seriously look¬ 
ing forward to owning a farm?" we find that the related renters, croppers, 
and laborers in each sample. population more frequently respond with a 
"Yes" than do the unrelated non-owners (Table 47) . It would seem, ac¬ 
cordingly, that this preponderance may be due not so much to a stronger 





- 68 - 


Table 47.- Percentages of all non-owners, classified by tenure 
and kinship to landlord, who are, or are not, looking 
forward to owning a farm 1/ 


Item 

• 

« 

* 

Are 

• • 

• • 

: Uncertain : 

Are not 

Northern: 

Tenants 


64.3 

13.3 

20.9 

Laborers 


33.3 

20.2 

40.6 

Related non-owners 


62.8 

15.1 

19.8 

Unrelated non-owners 


56.1 

14,6 

26.9 

Southern white: 

Renters 


74.8 

9.1 

13.9 

Croppers 


68.5 

9.5 

20.8 

Laborers 


67.9 

1.9 

20.8 

Related non-owners 


75.0 

9.6 

12.5 

Unrelated non-owners 


71.1 

8,2 

18.2 

Negro: 

Renters 


89.3 

1.6 

8.7 

Croppers 


72.6 

8.3 

18.3 

Laborers 


65.2 

6.7 

27.0 

Related non-owners 


81.6 

7.9 

7.9 

Unrelated non-owners 


77.3 

5.7 

16.6 


1/ Omitting percentages for cases not reporting. 


desire for ownership on the part of the related group as to their greater 
feeling of assurance that assistance will be forthcoming during their 
climb up the agricultural ladder. 

Disregarding relationship of landlord and employer and considering 
simply the various non-owning tenure classes, we find that renters in each 
case say more often than other classes that they are looking forward to 
ownership. It is worth noticing, however, that Southern renters, both 
white and Negro, but especially the latter, are more frequently looking 
forward to ownership than are Northern renters. It is also interesting to 
see that Northern farm laborers, at least so far as our sample indicates, 
are less anxious than Southern farm laborers to climb the agricultural 
ladder. Only one-third of the former, as compared with two-thirds of the 
latter, say that they are looking forward to farm ownership. In other 
words, relatively twice as many Southern as Northern farm laborers have 
this aspiration (Table 47). 

When the vague and indefinite question about "looking forward" to 
farm ownership is changed to the more specific one, "Would you say that 






- 69 - 


your prospects of owning a farm in the next five years are good, fair, or 
poor?" we find a serious shrinkage of prospective farm owners. Only 13 
to 17 percent of the renters feel that their prospects of becoming farm 
owners within the next 5 years are good. This is true of even fewer 
croppers and of still fewer laborers. Conversely, large proportions of 
non-owners state definitely that their prospects of ownership within the 
next 5 years are poor, their numbers ranging from two-thirds to three- 
fourths of all croppers and laborers, and amounting to about one-half of 
all renters. The proportion of renters reporting poor prospects is largest 
among the Negroes, slightly smaller among the Southern whites, and small¬ 
est among the Northern farmers (Table 48) . 


Table 48.- Percentages of all non-owners, classified by tenure 
and kinship to landlord, who say that their prospects 
of owning a farm within the next five years 
are good, fair, or poor 1/ 


Item 

: Good 

: Fair 

Poor 

Northern: 

Tenants 

17.1 

36.5 

43.3 

Laborers 

2.9 

21.7 

66.7 

Related non-owners 

15.1 

38.4 

43.0 

Unrelated non-owners 

13.8 

31.7 

50.0 

Southern white: 

Renters 

12.8 

31.0 

51.8 

Croppers 

7.7 

22.0 

68.5 

Laborers 

1.9 

17.0 

67.9 

Related non-owners 

12.5 

34.6 

48.1 

Unrelated non-owners 

9.2 

24.3 

62.1 

Negro: 

Renters 

16.6 

' 28.9 

54.2 

Croppers 

13.2 

19.1 

66.9 

Laborers 

7.9 

14,6 

75.3 

Related non-owners 

34.2 

21.1 

42.1 

Unrelated non-owners 

12.6 

22.0 

64.6 


1/ Omitting percentages for cases not reporting. 

Separating non-owners into those dealing with relatives and non¬ 
relatives, we find that the proportions reporting "good prospects" are 
consistently larger within the related group than within the unrelated 
group. Similarly, the proportions reporting "poor prospects" are smaller 






- 70 - 


among the non-owning farmers within the related group, and larger among 
those dealing with non-relatives. The excess of "good prospects" re¬ 
sponses on the part of related, as compared with unrelated, non-owners 
is larger by far among Negroes than in the white sample populations. 
Kinship to the landlord, it would seem, means much more to the colored 
than to the white farmer (Table 48). 

Non-Owners and the Farms They Want 


The first question put to our informants in order to ascertain 
the ideas of non-owners on the subject of buying farms was this: "Would 
you like to buy this farm?" If the response to this query was either 
uncertain or negative, the following question was asked: "If not, would 
you like to buy some other farm?" In Table 49 the responses to these 
two questions are summarized; all those saying "Yes" to either the first 
or the second question (that is, wanting either the present or some other 
farm) were included in one group, those saying "No" (wanting neither the 
present nor any other farm) were combined in the second group, and those 
uncertain with respect to both questions were put into the third group. 
The tenure differences v/hich appear are as follows: renters, croppers, 
and laborers want to buy either the present farm or another farm in 
respectively decreasing proportions. The only exception is that no 
difference appears between the proportions of Southern white renters and 
croppers wanting a farm, both of these tenure classes reporting the same 
percentage (86.9) of "Yes" responses. 

A further point is to be considered. Do tenants renting from 
relatives want to buy the farm they are now living on more frequently or 
less frequently than those who are renting from or working for non-rela¬ 
tives? Among white non-owners, members of the related group are definite¬ 
ly more interested than those of the unrelated group in purchasing the 
farms on which they now live. Among Negro non-owners the reverse is true: 
related non-owners are less often interested in purchasing the farms on 
which they now live than are unrelated non-owners (Table 49). 

This may arise from the fact that Negro landowners in general are 
very reluctant to part with land once it has been acquired and cleared of 
indebtedness. But another suggested explanation seems even more plausi¬ 
ble - that the farm land owned by Negro farmers is, for the most part, 
very poor or undesirably located. The Negro landlord, naturally, is able 
to rent to his relatives only the land he has been able to acquire. These 
related non-owners, though apparently preferring to rent from kinsfolk, 
are not deluded as to the inferior quality of the land available to them 
when the landlord, like themselves, is colored. Accordingly, even though 
the related group of Negro non-owners may have very good prospects of 
becoming owners through inheritance, they may be much less interested in 
buying land from their relatives. 



- 71 - 


j.able 49. Percentages of all non—owners who say they would, or 
would not, like to buy present or some other farm 1/ 


Item 

• 

Yes 

: Uncertain : 

No 

Northern: 

Tenants 


71.9 

8.7 

15.6 

Laborers 


52.2 

15.9 

27.5 

Related non-owners 


47.7 

8.1 

41.9 

Unrelated non-owners 


31.7 

6.1 

58.6 

Southern white: 

Renters 


86.9 

3.6 

4.0 

Croppers 


86.9 

2.4 

4.8 

Laborers 


77.4 

5.7 

3.8 

Related non-owners 


56.7 

4.8 

34.6 

Unrelated non-owners 


46.0 

2.6 

46.0 

Negro: 

Renters 


95.3 

2.4 

.8 

Croppers 


86.8 

7.0 

5.1 

Laborers 


80.9 

3.4 

13.5 

Related non-owners 


42.1 

5.3 

47.4 

Unrelated non-owners 


58.0 

3.8 

37.3 


1/ Omitting percentages for cases not reporting. 


The next step, obviously, is to find out something about the size 
of the farm wanted by those non-owners who express an interest in buying 
(Fig. 11). Many considerations are involved in these expressions of 
preference, such as size of family, fertility of the soil in the par¬ 
ticular area under consideration, rainfall conditions, etc., but the 
fundamental differences between farming in the North and in the South are 
especially reflected in the differences in size of farm wanted by Northern 
and by Southern non-owners. Tenure differences of apparent significance 
are also discernible, for both in the North and in the South laborers tend 
to want the smaller farms, croppers the somewhat larger farms, and renters 
the largest farms. However, these differences seem minor in comparison 
with the basic regional differences. 

Suppose you were in a position to help set up one of these non¬ 
owning farmers on a farm that he should eventually pay .for. How would you 
go about finding a suitable farm? Would the man you were attempting to 
help welcome your efforts to locate him elsewhere, or would he want to 
pick out the place himself? 










NUMBER PERCENT 


-72- 


O 

O 


o 

oo 


o 

CO 


o 


o 

CM 


o 



> 


cr 

O 


00 

o 



00 

<D 

<D 


CO 

CM 

CM 

• 

ae 

o 

CM 



1^ 

CD 

CM 


O 

CO 


• 

o 

< 

•“ 








CM 

CM 



Ll. 












O 


CO 

2 



to 

CO 



CO 

CO 

1- 

to 

cr 

q; 


to 

cr 

cr 


CO 

cr 

cr 

UJ 

cr 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

cr 

LU 

UJ 

o 

cr 

UJ 

LU 


UJ 

h- 

cr 

O 

X 

h- 

r— 

X 

UJ 

i- 

CL 

CL 

cr 

O 

Ll. 

o 

il 1 

UJ 

h- 

CL 

CL 

cr 

o 

tc 

< 

0L 

z 

CD 


$ 

z 

o 

GO 

2 

z 

o 

CO 

UJ 

a 

LU 

< 

o 


UJ 

cr 

< 


UJ 

a: 

< 

in 

cr 

_J 

V/ / 


cr 

u 

-J 


ac 

o 

_i 

=> 


CO 

5 

<x 

< 

u. 

> 

D 

CD 

o 

K 

Ul 

* 

-J 

o 

_J 

D 

O 

5 • 

CO 

O Ld 
X O 
5 < 

ui 
co o: 
cr o 

Ld < 
X 

5 o 

O UJ 

1 - 

2 U. 
O — 

2 a 

Ul 
U. 0. 
O CO 

CO L. 
Ld O 

o 

< 

I- 

2 

Ul 

o 

a: 

Ld 

Q_ 

I 


UJ 

a 

D 

O 

U_ 


































































- 73 - 


Marked differences exist among the tenure groups: laborers and 
croppers more often than renters consistently say they would want help or 
advice in finding a suitable farm. But Negro laborers and croppers show 
much more uniformity in this respect than white farmers in the same tenure 
classes. In fact, even Negro renters give the same type of response four 
times out of five, whereas only about one-half of the white renters indi¬ 
cate a desire for assistance in locating a good farm (Table 50). 


Table 50.- Percentages of non-owners desiring to purchase farms 
who say they would or would not want: (1) help or advice in 
finding a suitable farm; (2) advice from creditors in 

running farm 


Sample population: 


Finding farm 



Running farm 


and tenure status: 

Yes 

; Uncertain : 

No : 

Yes 

: Uncertain 

: No 

Northern: 

Tenants 

52.9 

8.0 

39.1 

44.8 

17.2 

37.9 

Laborers 

70.0 

10.0 

20.0 

50.0 

25.0 

25.0 

Southern white: 

Renters 

46.5 

22.1 

31.4 

39.5 

30.2 

30.2 

Croppers 

49.3 

16.9 

33.8 

39.4 

23.9 

36.6 

Laborers 

74.2 

12.9 

12.9 

45.2 

12.9 

41.9 

Negro: 

Renters 

80.6 

6.5 

12.9 

85.5 

3.2 

11.3 

Croppers 

93.3 

3.8 

2.9 

83.8 

8.6 

7.6 

Laborers 

97.4 

— 

2.6 

92.3 

2.6 

5.1 


Accordingly, although we find tenure differences and although they 
appear to be significant, it seems evident that the circumstances of Negro 
non—owning farmers are in general so different from those of white non- 
owning farmers that with respect to this particular question they should 
be considered separately as a racial group. Treatment on the basis of 
tenure status without regard for race would not be sufficient. On the 
other hand, it is also possible that the advising and supervision of non- 
owners remains desirable for all non-owning groups. If the latter be 
true, we may safely say that as far as this phase of a tenant-aid or 
farm—purchasing program is concerned there will be more opposition — or at 
least less cooperation - among white farmers than among Negroes. 

A somewhat different situation is involved in the following ques¬ 
tion: "Would you want any advice from your creditor in running your 
farm?" Our findings, however, are much the same. Laborers more often 
than croppers or renters say that they are willing to receive, such super— 









- 74 - 


vision. The racial differences pointed out in the preceding pai’agraph 
are even more striking in this connection. The proportion of Negro farm¬ 
ers, regardless of tenure, who say "Yes" to this question is roughly 
twice as large as among white non-owning farmers (Table 50) . It would 
seem clear that proposals to solve the tenancy problem through super¬ 
vision of non-owning farmers stand much better chances of a warm recep¬ 
tion among Negro farmers than among white farmers, and that tenure dif¬ 
ferences within these racial groups are comparatively insignificant. 

Regardless of the type of tenant-aid program suggested, regardless 
of its advocates or its intended scope, the attempt to transform non- 
owners into farm owners is likely to cost money. Naturally enough, the 
taxpayer would like to know how much. Accordingly, we questioned our 
non-owning informants regarding the estimated cost of the farms they 
would like to buy. Tenure differences are still present, but again the 
differences that distinguish farming in the South from farming in the 
North seem more impressive. For less than $4,000 each - if our farmers 
knew what they were talking about - you could have gone out in the winter 
of 1936 and secured precisely the farms desired by over one-half of the 
would-be purchasers among the white farmers in the South and by over nine- 
tenths of those among the Negroes. Less than $1,000 per farm, apparently, 
would take care of roughly one-third of the Negro non-owners, but a 
similar amount would help only very few white farmers in the South and 
practically none at all in the North. In fact, $4,000 would not suffice 
for more than one-tenth of the Northern tenants. To place even a majority 
of the would-be purchasers among non-owners in the North on the farms they 
want, it would be necessary to increase the investment to over $10,000 
per farm, 

As a matter of fact, about one-half of the renters and about two- 
thirds of the laborers estimate that it would take over $10,000 per farm. 
This sum was mentioned as the probable cost by about 1 percent of the 
Negro farmers and by relatively small proportions of the white farmers in 
the South. It would seem safe to say here, as in the preceding compari¬ 
sons, that tenure differences, although they appear, are less important 
than regional and racial differences (Table 51). 

How much would the farmer be able to pay down on his farm? Renters 
in each sample population are able to make the best showing with respect 
to possible down payments. In the South, there are actually fewer crop¬ 
pers than farm laborers who would be able to pay down $100 or more. This 
is true of both whites and Negroes. Laborers, in other words, seem to be 
slightly better fixed financially than croppers. Probably the fact that 
there is an overwhelming proportion of Southern farmers, regardless of 
tenure class, v/hose upper limit on a down payment is less than $100 is of 
more importance than the small tenure differences which appear. In the 
North about one-half of all non-owners say they would be able to pay less 
than $100, and it should be noted that this category includes also those 
who could pay down nothing (Table 52). 


- 75 - 


Table 51.- Percentages of non-owners desiring to purchase farms who 
estimate cost of such farms to be specified amounts 


Sample population 
and amount 

• • 

• « 

: Renters : 

• 

Croppers 

Laborers 

Northern: 

Under $1,000 

0.6 



$ 1,000 - 4,000 

9.4 

— 

4.3 

4,000 - 10,000 

37.1 

— 

30.4 

10,000 and over 

52.9 

■ - — 

65.2 

Southern white: 

Under $1,000 

4.5 

6.4 

16.2 

$ 1,000 - 4,000 

51.0 

66.1 

35.1 

4,000 - 10,000 

27.8 

25.7 

37.8 

10,000 and over 

16.7 

1.8 

10.8 

Negro: 

Under $1,000 

29.5 

33.3 

35.1 

$ 1,000 - 4,000 

64.0 

62.1 

56.8 

4,000 - 10,000 

5.8 

3.5 

8.1 

10,000 and over 

.7 

1.0 

— 


Table 52.- Percentages of farmers desiring to purchase farms who 
say they could pay down specified amounts on purchase price 

of farms desired 


Sample population : : : 

and amount : Renters : Croppers : Laborers 


Northern: 


Under $100 

47.9 

— 

55.6 

$100 - 500 

3.0 

- 

— 

500 and over 

49.1 

— 

44.4 

Southern white: 

Under $100 

82.0 

97.6 

88.5 

$100 - 500 

11.2 

2.4 

7.8 

500 and over 

6.8 

— 

3.8 

Negro: 

Under $100 

78.3 

86.4 

77.8 

$100 - 500 

10.1 

6.8 

22.2 

500 and over 

11.4 

6.8 

““ 











- 76 - 


Closely related to the foregoing is the question of the size of the 
loan that would be needed to establish these non-owners as owners. Loans 
of $2,500 or less would seem to be large enough to help out Negro non- 
owners in nine out of every ten cases. In the North renters would require 
fewer of the large loans and more of the small loans than would laborers. 
Among Southern white farmers small loans - that is, of less than $2,500 - 
would help croppers relatively more often than either renters or laborers. 
In brief, tenure differences are again present, but compared with the 
sample population differences they seem insignificant (Table 53).. 

A much-disputed point in connection with proposed plans for aiding 
croppers, tenants, and laborers up the agricultural ladder involves the 
length of time that they should be allowed for the climb. The range of 
proposals is from a very few years up to the normal lifetime of the far¬ 
mer and even longer. White farm laborers, both North and South, specify 
longer time periods than other tenure classes within the same sample popu¬ 
lations. Regardless of tenure class, Negro farmers specify on the aver¬ 
age practically the same period for amortization, about 10 years, which 
is less than one-half that specified by Northern farmers (Table 54, 
p. 77). It must be kept in mind that the members of the various tenure 
classes and sample populations are thinking of repayment not in terms of 
loans of equal size, but of widely differing amounts. For this reason, 
the Negro non-owning group may not be so optimistic, relatively, as they 
would seem from the present comparison which disregards also size of 
holdings. Tenure differences again seem to be less significant than the 
sample population differences. 


Table 53.- Percentages of non-owners desiring to purchase farms 
who i ndicate size of 1oan in specified amount 


Sample population 
and amount 

• • 

: Renters : 

Croppers 

Laborers 

Under $2,500 

6.9 


4.2 

$ 2,500 - 3,999 

8.8 

— 

8.3 

4,000 - 9,999 

38.4 

— 

29.2 

10,000 or more 

45.9 

— 

58.3 

Southern white: 

Under $2,500 

37.6 

48.6 

36.1 

$ 2,500 - 3,999 

22.8 

26.6 

22.2 

4,000 - 9,999 

24.4 

22.9 

33.3 

10,000 or more 

15.2 

1.8 

8.3 

Negro: 

Under $2,500 

86.9 

88.7 

89.5 

$ 2,500 - 3,999 

10.9 

8.2 

5.3 

4,000 - 9,999 

2.2 

2.6 

5.3 

10,000 or more 

— 

.5 

— 






- 77 - 


Table 54.- Median numbers of years specified by non-owners de¬ 
siring to purchase farms as necessary for repayment 

of loans. 


Non-owners 

• 

; Northern 

• • 

• • 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

Renters 

21.7 

16.3 

11.0 

Croppers 

— 

14.3 

9.9 

Laborers 

24.2 

20.4 

9.9 


One further question remains: "What would be a fair rate of in¬ 
terest to pay on the loan by means of which the non-ov/ner becomes an 
owner?" Here some interesting tenure-class differences appear. The 
lower a farmer is in the tenure scale, it seems, the more he receives 
hard knocks and the more he comes to expect them. Conversely, the higher 
he climbs the more he receives good treatment, and comes to expect it. 

Within the group of Negro non-owners, for example, the proportion 
who say they think that 9 percent or more would be a fair rate of interest 
is twice as large among croppers as among renters, and over three times as 
large among laborers as among renters. This is true in spite of the fact 
that laborers receive smaller incomes and, in general, seem to be in a 
poorer position to pay high interest rates than renters. Conversely, the 
proportion of renters who regard a comparatively low rate (under 4 per¬ 
cent) as fair is larger than the proportions of croppers or laborers who 
mention similar rates. The same tendency seems to prevail, although to a 
much less noticeable degree, among Northern non-owners. In the North, 
however, the proportions who say they think that an interest rate ranging 
from 6 to 8 percent is fair were much lower than the proportions of Negro 
non-owners who were talking about 9 percent and more. Southern white 
non-owners in about seven cases out of ten, regardless of tenure, think 
that somewhere between 4 and 5 percent is a fair rate of interest (Fig. 
12 ). 

If we determine from the same data the median interest rate speci¬ 
fied, the tendencies previously pointed out are shown in a way which may 
be somewhat easier to grasp. Rates of interest estimated as fair by 
laborers (Northern, 4.7 percent; Southern white, 5.3 percent; Negro, 7.5 
percent) are consistently higher than those regarded as fair by renters 
and croppers (Northern renters, 4.5 percent; Southern white renters, 5.1 
percent; croppers, 5.0 percent; Negro renters, 6.2 percent; croppers, 
6.2 percent). Renters and croppers give nearly identical estimates. 
Regional differences, however, seem to be more important than tenure 
differences, for, on the basis of their own statements, the Negro farm¬ 
er would be willing to pay about 6.2 percent while the white farmer 
would want to pay about 5 percent in the South and 4.5 percent in the 
North. 






- 78 - 


number 


PLKL.LNI 


l 

NORTHERN 


RENTERS- 

187 

LABORERS- 

33 

SOUTHERN WHITE 

RENTERS- 

221 

CROPPFRS- 

131 

LABORERS- 

38 

NEGRO 

RENTERS- 

194 

CROPPERS 

244 

LABORERS- 

53 




Under 4 


PERCENT 

E82 4-5 [22 6-8 


E3 9 or more 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 327S6 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 12.- Percentages of non-owners indicating various rates 

OF INTEREST WHICH THEY REGARD AS FAIR. 


NUMBER PERCENT 

I 0 20 40 60 80 100 


NORTHERN 

OWNERS-355 

RENTERS-263 

LABORERS- 69 

SOUTHERN WHITE 

OWNERS-398 

RENTERS-275 

CROPPERS-168 

LABORERS-- 53 

NEGRO 

OWNERS-128 

RENTERS-253 

CROPPERS-372 

LABORERS- 89 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 32718 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 



YES 


1 i 

j UNCERTAIN OR J 

NO 




J NOT RESPONDING J 




Figure 13.- Percentages of farmers who think the Government should, or 

SHOULD NOT, DO SOMETHING AliOUT THE INCREASE OF FARM TENANCY. 




































































































































- 79 - 


Increase of Farm Tenancy 

Whether the increase in farm tenancy has been rapid enough to cause 
alarm, whether it means that something is seriously wrong, or whether it 
is to be regarded merely as the natural course of events in a gradually 
maturing country - these are questions that are doubtless open to dis¬ 
cussion. But while the doctors argue among themselves, we will ask our 
farmers the two most fundamental questions to be raised with regard to 
the whole situation. The first is: "Do you think the Government ought 
to do anything about it?" Most farmers say, "Yes.” But within this group 
who, it would seem, should show the most concern about the increase of 
farm tenancy, there are differences between tenure classes as to the pro¬ 
portions who think the Government should take definite steps. Owners 
seem to be somewhat less concerned than non-owners about getting the 
Government to do something. 15/ 

Disregarding the responses of those who are uncertain, and noting 
first the proportions who say definitely, "No, the Government should not 
do anything about the matter," clear-cut tenure differences appear. The 
proportion giving this negative answer declines almost regularly as we go 
down the tenure ladder from owners through renters and croppers to labor¬ 
ers (Fig, 13). 

Now let us turn to the second fundamental question. In case the 
response to the first inquiry was positive, this one follows: "What do 
you think the Government ought to do about it?" (Table 55, p. 80). The 
most frequent type of response found in the North has to do with improving 
credit facilities. Practically one-half of the Northern respondents, re¬ 
gardless of tenure class, consider this the best way for the Government to 
begin in attacking the tenancy problem. In the South, this type of sug¬ 
gestion is made by from one-fourth to one-third of the white farmers, de¬ 
pending upon the tenure class, and by less than one-tenth of the Negro 
informants. 

Although tenure differences appear in each sample population, they 
are comparatively much smaller than the differences between sample popu¬ 
lations. Another type of response revealing considerable differences 
between the three sample populations is one that may be classified as 
"facilitate land ownership by means unspecified." This response is most 
frequent among Negroes, comprising from one-fourth to nearly one-half 
of all responses, depending upon the tenure class considered. 14/ It is 

13/ At the time this field work was in progress, no tenant-aid legis¬ 
lation had been passed. Subsequently, the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act 
was enacted. 

14/ It is the opinion of C. G. Gomillion, supervisor of Negro field 
workers, that "many Negroes whose responses fall within this category 
desire the Government to buy land and sell it to them at a reasonable 
price, or help them secure a desirable farm from owners of large holdings. 
They seldom have in mind securing a loan from the Government." 




- 80 - 


Table 55.- Percentages of farmers thinking the Government should do 
something about the increase of farm tenancy who make 
specified types of suggestions 1/ 




Improve:Facilitate 

• 

:Restrict: 

Tenure 

: Total : 

credit 

: ownership 

• 

:size of 

: Approval 

status 

: number : 

facili- 

: by means 

:Aid only 

: land- 

: but not 


:responding: 

ties 

•.unspecified; deserving; holding 

;suggestion 

Northern: 

Owners 

217 

52.5 

12.9 

3.7 

6,9 

13.4 

Tenants 

183 

52.5 

14.2 

1.6 

9.8 

12.0 

Laborers 

42 

50.0 

16.7 

— 

14.3 

11.9 

Southern 

white: 

Owners 

270 

24.8 

20.7 

20.7 

10.0 

12.6 

Renters 

224 

33.5 

16.5 

11.6 

11.1 

17.9 

Croppers 

123 

27.6 

30.1 

12.2 

7.3 

11.2 

Laborers 

44 

29.5 

22.7 

4.5 

4.5 

22.7 

Negro: 

Owners 

89 

6.7 

37.1 

5.6 

3.4 

10.1 

Renters 

190 

9.5 

46.8 

1.1 

— 

6.3 

Croppers 

272 

7.4 

35.7 

1.1 

0.7 

12.9 

Laborers 

66 

3.0 

25.8 

— 

— 

19.7 

1/ Omitting percentages 

for all other responses and 

those not 

responding. 


least frequent among Northern farmers., and appears with a frequency some¬ 
where between these extremes among Southern whites. Tenure class differ¬ 
ences are not at all consistent, laborers in the North, croppers among 
Southern v/hites, and renters among Negroes giving this response most often. 

Another type of response that shows marked differences between 
sample populations and, at the same time, striking and consistent tenure 
differences comes under the classification, "Aid only the deserving." 
Owners in each sample population give an answer of this sort most often, 
renters and croppers next, and laborers least often. As a matter of 
fact, no laborers among Northern farmers or Southern Negroes express 
such a conviction. Among Southern white farmers, owners respond thus 
about four times as often as laborers. In fact, this type of answer 
appears with significant frequency only among Southern white farmers. 
It implies a frame of mind that is to be found only rarely, apparently, 
among either Negroes or Northern farmers. 

Another type of response has to do with the suggestion that the 
maximum size of individual land holdings be restricted in one way or 
another, the specific method most often mentioned being some sort of a 









- 81 - 


graduated land tax. The tenure differences which appear in the North 
are exactly reversed in the South — laborers give this suggestion most 
frequently in the North, whereas in the South they mention it less often 
than other tenure classes among whites and not at all among Negroes. 
But regardless of tenure class, white farmers make this suggestion much 
more frequently than Negro farmers. 

One final category of responses may be mentioned—those in which 
the farmer says, "Yes, the Government should do something about the in¬ 
crease of tenancy," but makes no concrete suggestion as to what should be 
done. About one out of every eight farmers in the North, whether an 
owner, renter, or laborer, gives this sort of reply. In the South, how¬ 
ever, laborers make vague statements of approval about twice as often as 
owners. In other words, it would seem that in the North farm laborers as 
frequently as farm owners and renters have figured out just about what 
they think the Government should do, whereas, in the South they have reached 
this point in their thinking only about half as often as owners. It is 
possible that this difference is partially due to the general age differ¬ 
ences of the farm-laborer groups in the two regions, for the Northern 
laborers are somewhat older on the average than Southern laborers. 

Federal Government Programs for Farmers 

The question discussed in the preceding section is not entirely 
without precedent, for the Federal Government already has reached out to 
administer various programs designed to remedy certain farm problems. To 
find out something about the reception these programs are receiving and 
the reactions they have caused in farmers' thinking, several questions 
were asked concerning them (Table 56). 

The first program to be considered is that of the Agricultural 
Adjustment Administration. The questions asked were: "Do you favor that 
part of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration program whereby the 
Government pays farmers to reduce their crop acreage?" "Why or why not?" 
Tenure differences in the North are the reverse of those found in the 
South. In the North owners are less favorable and show more opposition to 
the acreage reduction program of the Agricultural Adjustment Administra¬ 
tion than non-owners, whether renters or laborers. In the South, on the 
contrary, it is the owners who show most frequent approval, over three out 
of every four declaring themselves definitely in favor of the program. 
Smaller favorable proportions are found among renters and croppers, and 
laborers are still less sympathetic, even less than a majority of Negro 
laborers expressing their approval. 15/ It must be noted that the 


15/ According to Mr. Gomillion, "Some Negro laborers felt that the 
Agricultural Adjustment Administration was partly to blame for their not 
being able to get much work; others felt that only landowners benefited 
by the program." 




- 82 - 


proportions of farmers who reply with no clearcut answer whose responses 
must be classified as "uncertain," are fairly large in the South, par¬ 
ticularly in the laborer group, This fact suggests that the smaller 
proportion in favor of the reduction program of the Agricultural Adjust¬ 
ment Administration may be due to lack of knowledge on the part of farm 
laborers regarding the program rather than to pronounced opposition. But 
when we note the proportions of farmers who say they are not in favor of 
the reduction program of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, we 
find that the tenure differences previously noted still remain. For this 
reason the rather large proportion of uncertain responses probably con¬ 
ceals less than one might think. 

When the same kind of question is raised regarding the soil conser¬ 
vation program of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration a similar 
situation is found in the South; but in the North, in this case, owners 
no longer comprise the least favorable group. The question was: "Do you 


Table 56.- Percentage of farmers who do, or do not, favor certain 
aspects of specified governmental programs 1/ 


Sample 

population 

Total 

Acreage 

• 

•.Resettlement 
Soil :Administra- 

Farm 

Credit 

Administra- 

and 

number 

reduction 

Conservation: tion 

tion 

tenure 

of 

program 

program : program 

program 

status 

cases 

Favor:Oppose 

Favor:Oppose:Favor:Oppose 

Favor:Oppose 


Northern: 


Owners 

355 

46.8 

33.5 

63.1 

16.1 

68.2 

8.7 

74.9 

7.3 

Tenants 

263 

50.9 

30.8 

73.8 

14.1 

76.4 

5.7 

77.2 

4.2 

Laborers 

69 

50.7 

31.9 

56.5 

27.5 

76.8 

4.3 

63.8 

7.2 

Southern 
white: 
Owners 

398 

79.4 

10.3 

83.7 

5.0 

64.3 

6.3 

76.6 

4.3 

Renters 

275 

75.3 

12.4 

76.0 

12.0 

65.8 

2.5 

72.0 

1.8 

Croppers 

168 

75.6 

9.5 

70.2 

10.7 

62.5 

1.2 

69.6 

— 

Laborers 

53 

58.5 

17.0 

66.0 

7.5 

71.7 

7.5 

64.2 

5.7 

Negro: 

Owners 

128 

75.9 

14.1 

78.1 

4.7 

55.0 

4.7 

71.9 

7.8 

Renters 

253 

69.6 

15.8 

76.7 

1.2 

43.9 

.8 

53.4 

7.5 

Croppers 

372 

64.0 

15.3 

65.5 

3.0 

47.8 

— 

53.5 

4.6 

Laborers 

89 

49.4 

21.3 

53.9 

5.6 

32.6 

— 

38.2 

4.5 


1/ Omitting percentages for those failing to respond or giving uncertain 
responses. 















- 83 - 


favor that part of the Soil Conservation program whereby the Government 
pays farmers for conserving or improving soil fertility?" Laborers gave 
both the smallest proportion of affirmative responses and the largest 
proportion of negative responses, one out of every four in the North op¬ 
posing the program. The proportions giving responses classified as un¬ 
certain are again quite large in the South, but the consistent decline of 
favorable responses as we go down the tenure ladder is not thereby con¬ 
cealed. There seems to be little difference in the relative proportions 
expressing approval of the soil conservation program in the South as com¬ 
pared with the acreage reduction program. In the North, however, the 
soil conservation program clearly has received the more cordial recep¬ 
tion. The size of the opposition, similarly, is smaller regarding the 
soil conservation program than toward the reduction program both in the 
North and in the South, In brief, the former program has apparently 
aroused less opposition than the latter; in the South it has about the 
same proportion of supporters as the acreage reduction program, but in the 
North it has a larger proportion. 

In contrast to the responses regarding both the acreage reduction 
program and the soil conservation program, tenure differences with re¬ 
spect to the Resettlement Administration program seem to follow racial 
rather than regional lines. The question was: "Do you favor that part 
of the Resettlement Administration program whereby the Government helps 
needy farmers 'to get on their feet'?" Among white farmers, both North and 
South, non-owners tend to be more favorable than owners. Among Negroes, 
on the other hand, the most favorable group consists of owners. But with 
respect to the Negro farmers in this comparison, the large proportion of 
uncertain responses is probably of more significance than either the 
favorable or the unfavorable reactions. Between two-thirds and three- 
fourths of the white farmers favor the program of the Resettlement Admin¬ 
istration, but about one-half of all Negro farmers seem to know too little 
about it to give definite responses. Tenure differences with respect to 
opposition toward this program are small, the least favorable groups 
reporting less than 10 percent actual opposition. We may say that where 
the Resettlement Administration is known at all by our farmers it is known 
favorably, but it is slightly more often approved by non-owners than by 
owners. Negro farmers on the whole know too little about it to express 
either their approval or disapproval. 

That the men whom we interviewed made frequent references to farm¬ 
ers' credit problems has already been indicated. What, then, do they have 
to say about the Federal agency that looks after these matters, the Farm 
Credit Administration? The question was: "Do you favor that part of the 
Farm Credit Administration program whereby the Government makes loans to 
farmers?" White farmers, both North and South, in most cases approve. 
The pattern of tenure differences with regard to approval are very similar 
to that found in the case of the Soil Conservation program. Owners in the 


- 84 - 


South are most favorable, while renters, croppers, and laborers respec¬ 
tively show diminishing support; in the North, renters lead the support, 
v/hile owners fall between renters and laborers in this respect. The pro¬ 
portions who are apparently too insufficiently informed to give definite 
responses are again largest in the Negro group, smaller among Southern 
whites, and smallest in the North, and they decrease generally from the 
lowest to the highest tenure classes. 

Only in the case of owners among Negro farmers is the proportion of 
these uncertain responses small enough for us to be quite clear as to how 
the members of the group feel about the Farm Credit Administration. 
Practically three out of every four Negro owners, just as among owners 
in the other two sample populations, give favorable responses. The 
declining proportions that express approval as we go down the Negro tenure 
ladder are rendered insignificant by the large proportions expressing un¬ 
certainty. 

By way of summary we may say that the opposition to the Farm Credit 
Administration is very small - smaller, in fact, than that reported re¬ 
garding any of the other governmental programs considered. Insofar as 
this agency is known, it is favorably looked upon by both Northern and 
Southern farmers, but non-owners among Negroes are comparatively little 
acquainted with it. Tenure differences, although small, tend to be in 
opposite directions in the North and South among white farmers, but they 
cannot be clearly discerned among Negroes because non-owning Negro farm¬ 
ers generally know practically nothing about the program. 

Appraisal of Own and Other Families' Conditions 

Certainly one of the key questions that should show whether a man 
feels he is well off or bad off is the question: "Would you rather be 
doing something else?" As we want to know whether farm tenants really 
think they are in less favorable circumstances than owners and whether 
they truly want to become owners in order to better themselves, we shall 
discuss further their attitudes toward ownership. But even more funda¬ 
mental, it would seem, is this question: "Would you rather farm than do 
anything else for a living?" Tenure classes do not show clear and con¬ 
sistent differences in their responses to this question. Negro farm 
laborers more often than any other tenure class, regardless of race or 
region, say they would prefer other occupations to farming. The next 
highest proportion giving this type of response is found among white part- 
owners in the South. Among the white farm laborers in the North not one 
says he would prefer some other occupation to farming. Landlords and 
owners in the North, on the contrary, more often than any other tenure 
class in that sample population, say they would rather do something else 
for a living (Table 57). 

In this country of opportunity, parents often reveal their occu¬ 
pational preferences more candidly through what they hope to have their 



- 85 - 


children do for a living than by what they themselves may be doing. All 
sorts of circumstances may prevent a person from achieving his cherished 
ambition, but there is little to deter him from saying just what he would 
like to see a son accomplish. Accordingly, this was our next question: 
"If you had your choice what would you prefer to have a son do for a 
living?" The answers reveal no consistent tenure differences but there 
are some interesting findings. 


Table 57.- Percentages of farmers who would, or would not, rather farm 

than do anything else for a living 1/ 



: Northern : 

Southern white : 

Negro 

Tenure status 

Other 

: Farm Occupation: 

: Other : 

Farm : Occupation: 

Other 

Farm Occupation 


Landlords and 


full owners 

74.5 

13.1 

77.6 

13.4 

91.7 

2.8 

Part-owners 

82.3 

3.1 

68.3 

14.6 

78.9 

10.5 

Renters 

84.8 

6.8 

840 

10.9 

90.5 

4.7 

Croppers 

— 

— 

77.4 

13.1 

85.5 

5.9 

Laborers 

82.6 

— 

86.8 

7.5 

73.0 

16.9 

1/ Omitting percentages 

for those 

failing to 

respond 

or giving 

uncertain 


responses. 

Among Negro farmers, almost all of whom prefer farming for them¬ 
selves, over half of the full and part-owners, renters, and farm laborers, 
and about 40 percent of the landlords and croppers, would choose occu¬ 
pations other than farming for sons if they had a chance. Even so, Negro 
landowners almost without exception are greater advocates of farming for 
their sons than are white owners. Within the group of Southern white farm¬ 
ers, the proportions of those favoring other occupations are about the 
same regardless of tenure class; but those who would prefer a son to 
farm are fewest among part-owners and croppers, increasing proportionate¬ 
ly in the categories of landlords, full owners, renters, and farm labor¬ 
ers. Among the laborers more than half express this opinion. 

Turning now to farmers in the North, we find them expressing with 
the greatest frequency the individualistic type of response: "I have no 
preference, I would leave it up to him to decide for himself." On the 
other hand, preferences for farming as compared with preferences for other 
occupations are predominant, regardless of tenure class, in this region. 
Among Northern farmers, in other words, there are about three farmers who 
say they would prefer their sons to farm for every one who says he would 
prefer to have his son do something else. 











■86 


Table 58-A.- Percentages of farmers who would prefer a son to farm, or to do something 
else for a living, or who express no preference 1 f 

—————- . 

Sot': Is population and tenure status: number :_ Percent reporting _ 

: of cases t Fans : Ho preference : Other occupation 


Northern: 


landlords 

110 

33 

30 

32 

8 

Pull owners 

149 

29 

16 

Part-owners 

96 

la 

33 

10 

Tenants 

263 

38 

22 

18 

Laborers 

69 

38 

26 

14 

Southern white: 

Landlords 

195 

3U 

24 

17 

Full owners 

162 

35 

22 

20 

part-owner s 

la 

20 

27 

20 

Renters 

275 

38 

22 

22 

Croppers 

166 

30 

25 

22 

Laborers 

53 

35 

17 

17 

Negro: 

Landlords 

32 

50 

6 

38 

Pull owners 

77 

36 

3 

51 

Fart-owners 

19 

32 

5 

53 

Renters 

253 

58 

5 

52 

Croppers 

372 

I42 

1* 

43 

Laborers 

99 

29 

ll 

54 


Table 58-E.- Percentages of farmers, classified by type of occupational experience, who would prefer a son to farm 
or to do something else for a living, or who express no preference y 

Sample population, tenure status : total : 

and : number :_ Percent reporting 

occupational experience: of oases t Farm i No preference t Other occupation 


Northern: 
Landlords - 


Farm 

81 

36 

31 

7 

Non-farm 

29 

28 

34 

10 

Full and part-owners - 

Farm 

185 

36 

30 

13 

Non-farm 

60 

28 

32 

15 

Tenants - 

Farm 

175 

38 

22 

17 

Non-farm 

88 

36 

20 

20 

Laborers - 

Farm 

47 

38 

25 

13 

Non-fam 

22 

36 

27 

18 

Southern white* 

Landlords - 

Farm 

119 

39 

23 

15 

Non-farm 

76 

25 

26 

21 

Full and part-owners - 

Farm 

150 

31 

25 

17 

Non-farm 

73 

33 

19 

26 

Renters - 

Farm 

189 

39 

19 

25 

Non-farm 

86 

37 

29 

16 

Croppers - 

Farm 

133 

26 

28 

25 

Non-farm 

35 

46 

14 

11 

Laborers - 

Farm 

329 

44 

19 

25 

Non-farm 

21 

71 

14 

5 

Negro: 

Landlords - 

Farm 

21 

57 

5 

33 

Non-farm 

11 

36 

9 

liS 

Full and part-owners - 

Farm 

67 

33 

0 

57 

Non-farm 

29 

4i 

10 

38 

Renters - 

Farm 

180 

38 

4 

53 

31 

Non-farm 

73 

38 

7 

Croppers - 

Farm 

280 

U* 

4 

1*0 

Non-farm 

92 

37 

4 

Laborers - 

Farm 

61 

29 

15 

52 

Non-farm 

28 

29 

4 

57 


1/ Ctaitting percentages for those not reporting and those whose answers were too indefinite to classify. 












- 87 - 


The contrast between part-owners in the three sample populations 
is pronounced: for every Northern part-owner preferring another occupa¬ 
tion for his son there are four who prefer farming; among white farmers in 
the South, the ratio is practically one to one; and among Negro farmers, 
the pendulum swings in the opposite direction, preferences for other oc¬ 
cupations far exceeding those for farming. If wishes mean anything, farm¬ 
ing is evidently regarded with very different feelings by Northern, South¬ 
ern white, and colored farmers. Tenure-class differences within the three 
sample populations are overshadowed by the differences of region and race 
(Table 58-A). 

It is axiomatic that one's wishes are influenced considerably by 
one's experience. Let us, therefore, separate our informants into two 
categories on the basis of their having had farm experience only or their 
having had other experience in addition to farming. If we take up those 
who have worked and lived only on farms, we find that Negro landlords 
stand apart by the predominance of those preferring farming for their sons 
although it must be noted that this percentage is based on a very small 
number. When we take up Negro landlords who are acquainted with life off 
the farm, although their number is likewise small, the proportion prefer¬ 
ring farming declines considerably. The most striking point to be made 
from the figures dealing with those reporting "farm experience only" is 
the large proportion of Negro owners and part-owners who would prefer 
their sons to follow their occupations. These men know plenty about farm 
life, but have doubtless heard much of advantages off the farm. When we 
examine the preferences of colored owners and part-owners who have actually 
had non-farm experience, we find that the situation is actually reversed; 
more of this group express farming as their preference than indicate 
other occupations, 16/ 

The closest agreement found among the farmers in any tenure class 
appears among Southern white farm laborers. Their experiences off the 
farm, evidently, have been so disappointing that almost three out of every 
four want their sons to be farmers, and only one out of a total of twenty- 
one, or 5 percent, which is less than in any similar category, prefers 
his son to follow some other occupation. Among other Southern white 
farmers with non-farm experience, the proportions who want their sons to 
be farmers consistently decrease as we go up the tenure hierarchy. If we 
begin with farm laborers and examine croppers, renters, owners, and part- 
owners in turn, we find when we reach landlords that only one of these in 
four definitely prefers farming for a son. On the basis of the foregoing, 
it is impossible to say that non-farm experience affects farmers similarly, 
regardless of race, region, or tenure class, with respect to preferences 
for occupations (Table 58-B). 

Farmers in each sample population who expressed a preference for 
farming as an occupation for their sons wished their sons to be owners 


16/ The small number of cases and the smallness of the percentage differ¬ 
ences necessitates caution in the interpretation of these figures. 



- 88 - 


in such overwhelming proportions that tenure class comparisons are super¬ 
fluous . 


The next question was: "Do you think a son should be willing to 
sacrifice some convenience to become a farm owner?" The responses reveal 
little uncertainty and even less disagreement as to the need for sacri¬ 
fice. Definite opinions to the effect that sons should sacrifice to attain 
ownership ar® held by ninety-five out of one hundred farmers in the South, 
both white and colored. The proportions expressing uncertainty are 
largest in the North, being from two to three times as large as in the 
South. Only in the North do we find anyone expressing the opinion that 
ownership is not worth making sacrifices to attain, and even there the 
proportion is only one in a hundred (Table 59 . 


Table 5SPercentages of farmers preferring a son to be 
a farm owner who think he should be willing to 
sacrifice some convenience to become an owner 


Response 

: Northern 

: Southern 

white 

: Nemro 

:Owners 

:Non-Owners 

:Owners:Non 

.-Owners 

:Owners:Non-Owners 

Should 

94 

88 

96 

96 

98 98 

Should not 

1 

1 

— 

— 

— — 

Uncertain 

5 

11 

4 

4 

2 2 

Total number 






reporting 

116 

124 

136 

180 

49 281 


The final inquiry in this group was: "Do you think the Government 
ought to help him (that is. a son ) to become a farm owner?" The responses 
to this question show consistent tenure differences regardless of race 
and region, but the differences between sample populations are greater 
than the differences between the tenure classes In each case, the pro¬ 
portion favoring governmental assistance is larger among non-owners., the 
difference being greatest in the North, smaller among Southern whites, 
and least among Southern Negro farmers. The proportions definitely 
opposed to having the Government aid their sons attain ownership follow 
the opposite sequence (Fig. 14, p. 90). 

A more detailed tenure classification reveals significant differ¬ 
ences Landlords among whites, both North and South, show far less 
eagerness for the Government to aid their sons than do full owners. 
Full owners similarly show less of such interest than do part-owners. 
Renters in the North reach the highest point among Northern tenure 
classes when it comes to desiring governmental facilitation of sons’ 
ownership (Table 60). 







- 89 - 


Turning now from questions dealing with farm ownership, let us 
take up several questions intended to throw light on farmers' opinions 
as to how their circumstances, generally, can best be improved. The 

Table 60.- Percentages of farmers who would prefer to have a son become 
a farmer and who think the Government should, or should not, 

help a son to become a farm owner 


Sample population: 
and tenure status: 

Total 

number 
of cases 

Government 
should help 

Uncertain 

: Government 
: should not 
: help 

Northern: 

Landlords 

36 

39 

33 

28 

Full owners 

42 

52 

24 

24 

Part-owners 

38 

68 

18 

13 

Tenants 

98 

70 

19 

10 

Laborers 

26 

61 

35 

4 

Southern white: 

Landlords 

67 

64 

24 

12 

Full owners 

61 

85 

15 

— 

Part-owners 

8 

87 

12 

— 

Renters 

102 

80 

16 

4 

Croppers 

49 

88 

8 

4 

Laborers 

29 

79 

14 

7 

Negro: 

Landlords 

16 

94 

6 

— 

Full owners 

27 

89 

7 

4 

Part-owners 

6 

100 

— 

— 

Renters 

96 

96 

3 

1 

Croppers 

159 

93 

6 

1 

Laborers 

25 

96 

4 



first of these is as follows: "Do you think you would be better off if 
your farm were bigger?" Tenure differences regarding the wish for a farm 
larger than the present one are fairly consistent. The lower tenure 
classes think they would be better off with larger farms, although land¬ 
lords seem to regard larger farms as liabilities rather than assets. 
Conversely, those definitely not preferring a bigger :arm decline pro¬ 
portionally as we go down the tenure ladder. But i rom this comparison 
the most important finding seems to be that the white farmers, legard— 
igss Qf tenure class, who want bigger farms are fewer than those who 
expressly do not want bigger farms, while Negroes, except in the iarni— 
owning classes, evidence a preponderance in the opposite ditection 
(Table 61). 








-90- 


* 


NUMBER 


PERCENT 



NORTHERN 

OWNER-116 

NONOWNER — 124 

SOUTHERN WHITE 

OWNER-136 

NONOWNER — 180 

NEGRO 

OWNER-49 

NONOWNER — 281 


Government should help son I ’/A Uncertain 


Government should not help son 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 32719 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 14 .- Percentages of owning and non-owning farmers who think the 
Government should, or should not, help a son to become a farm owner. 



PERCENT 


NORTHERN 


OWNERS 

355 

TENANTS 

263 

LABORERS 

69 

SOUTHERN WHITE 

OWNERS 

398 

TENANTS 

443 

LABORERS 

53 

NEGRO 

OWNERS 

128 

TENANTS 

625 

LABORERS 

89 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 


NEG.32673 


Figure 15.- Percentages of farmers who say they are not satisfied 

WITH THEIR PRESENT CREDIT ARRANGEMENTS. 


rnSSm 







































































- 91 - 


Further significant tenure differences appear when we consider the 
proportions of farmers who are not satisfied with their present credit 


Table 61.- Percentages of farmers who think they would or would not 

be better off if present farm were bigger 



; Total : 

Percentages reporting 

Sample population 

: number : 

: : Not 

and tenure status 

;reporting; 

Better off : Uncertain : better off 


Northern: 


Landlords 

110 

22 

14 

62 


Full and part-owners 

245 

31 

12 

55 


Tenants 

263 

35 

10 

55 


Southern white; 

Landlords 

195 

21 

13 

63 


Full and part-owners 

203 

34 

12 

51 


Renters 

275 

27 

9 

61 


Croppers 

168 

30 

10 

58 


Negro; 

Landlords 

32 

22 

9 

69 


Full and part-owners 

96 

45 

5 

46 


Renters 

253 

49 

8 

42 


Croppers 

372 

55 

7 

36 



arrangements. In the North the proportions who are dissatisifed decline 
as we go from owners through renters to laborers, whereas among Southern 
whites this trend in tenure differences is exactly reversed. The iacv 
that there are much larger proportions of dissatisfied farmers among 
Negroes than among whites, however, seems even more significant nan e 
tenure differences appearing within the South (Fig. 15). Looking 
into the effect of kinship upon credit arrangements, we find that it 
makes practically no difference in the North with respect to this ques tion 
whether or not one is renting from, or working for, a relative. In the 
South, on the contrary, the related group is for the most part better 
satisfied with credit arrangement^ than the unrelated group; moreover, the 
former among Negroes seem to be even better satisfied than owners. 17/ 

Following up those informants who express dissatisfaction .,_ia. 
present credit arrangements with this question, "What one change would 
you like to make?” we find that laborers are dissatisfied because the 

17/ The percentages of non-owners satisfied with present credit arrange¬ 
ments are as follows: Northern related, 72, unrelated, 73; Southern 
white, related 77, unrelated, 66; Negro related, 76, unrelated, 44. 












- 92 - 


amount of credit available is too limited, while all other tenure classes 
would chiefly prefer lower interest rates. These generalizations hold 
true in all three sample populations (Table 62). 


Table 62.- Percentages of farmers dissatisfied with present credit 
arrangements who suggest specified changes 




Percentages suggesting 


Total 


Increased 

Sample population 

number 

Lower : Longer 

amount 

and tenure status 

reporting 

interest :period for : 
rate : repayment : 

of credit 
obtainable 


Northern: 


Owners 

82 


83 

2 

4 

Tenants 

55 


74 

5 

13 

Laborers 

11 


18 

18 

45 

Southern white: 

Owners 

55 


57 

6 

11 

Tenants 

114 


51 

3 

13 

Laborers 

16 


19 

— 

37 

Negro: 

Owners 

39 


61 

8 

18 

Tenants 

298 


45 

5 

25 

Laborers 

39 

— 

36 

3 

44 


Consistent tenure differences also appear among responses to this 
question, "Do you think your present farming practices are improving the 
soil on this farm, not affecting its fertility, or harming it?" In each 
sample population, the proportions who think they are improving the soil 
are largest among owners, less among renters, and least among croppers 
(Table 63). 

Do members of one tenure class feel that they are better off or 
worse off than members of other tenure classes living in the same neigh¬ 
borhood? Do owners more frequently than non-owners express satisfaction 
with their circumstances, or do tenure classes differ not at all with re¬ 
spect to these subjective feelings of satisfaction? The answer is, clear¬ 
ly, that there are significant and consistent tenure differences: in each 
sample population landlords most frequently say they feel better off than 
their neighbors, while owners and part-owners express this feeling of 
superiority more often than the lower tenure classes. Conversely, the 
proportion of responses indicating a feeling of being in worse circum¬ 
stances than their neighbors appears most frequently among farm laborers, 
and next most often, in the South, among croppers (Table 64) . 












- 93 - 


Table 63.- Percentages of farmers who think their present farming prac¬ 
tices are improving, not affecting, or harming the soil on their farms 


Sample population : 

: Total number : 


Percentages reporting 


and tenure status 

: reporting : 

Improving : Not affecting : 

Harming 

Northern: 

Owner 

355 

69 

21 

10 

Tenant 

263 

59 

25 

16 

Southern white: 

Owner 

398 

77 

15 

8 

Renter 

275 

68 

23 

8 

Cropper 

168 

62 

30 

6 

Negro: 

Owner 

128 

72 

13 

12 

Renter 

253 

66 

19 

11 

Cropper 

372 

64 

17 

13 


Table 64.- Percentages of farmers 

who think their family, as 

compared 

with the 

average in their 

neighborhood, 

is better off. 



worse off, or the 

• same as the 

average 


Sample population 

: Total number : 

Percentages reporting 

and tenure status 

: reporting : 

Better off : 

Average : Worse off 

Northern: 





Landlords 

110 

35 

61 

4 

Full owners 

149 

29 

68 

3 

Part-owners 

96 

28 

71 

1 

Tenants 

263 

6 

89 

5 

Laborers 
Southern white: 

69 

6 

67 

26 

Landlords 

195 

29 

67 

3 

Full owners 

162 

11 

83 

6 

Part-owners 

41 

7 

85 

7 

Renters 

275 

6 

84 

9 

Croppers 

168 

2 

76 

21 

Laborers 

53 

4 

47 

49 

Negro: 





Landlords 

32 

44 

47 

9 

Full owners 

77 

17 

64 

18 

Part-owners 

19 

26 

53 

21 

Renters 

253 

5 

76 

19 

Croppers 

372 

3 

65 

30 

Laborers 

89 

3 

52 

45 













- 94 - 


f 


By what criteria does a farmer judge that his family is better off 
or worse off than those of his neighbors? Combining all the owning class¬ 
es into one group and the non-owning classes into another group, we find 
certain differences that are consistent, regardless of region or race. 
Two of these consistencies are striking; (1) the frequency with which 
farm owners mention the ownership of, or the possession of an equity in, 
a farm, farm land, or a home; (2) the fact that non-owners more fre¬ 
quently than owners mention food, clothing, or food and clothing as the 
factors by which they judge themselves to be better off than their neigh¬ 
bors. It is important to note that the proportion of owners who speak 
of ownership as contributing to a sense of superiority is smallest in the 
North, larger among Southern whites, and largest among Negroes. The 
proportions who speak of material necessities are largest among Negroes, 
smaller among whites in the South, and smallest among Northern farmers. 
It is surprising to find that the group least often mentioning financial 
arrangements - income, savings, or debts - as a basis for a feeling 
of superiority is composed of Negro farm owners. In this respect the 
Negro group shows tenure differences that are the opposite of those exist¬ 
ing in both white sample populations (Table 65) . 

Taking up the responses that explain why some farmers feel worse 
off than their neighbors, we find that general financial conditions (in¬ 
cluding income, savings, debts, etc.) are most frequently specified, In 
this comparison the thinking of the farmers in the three sample popu¬ 
lations is contrasted even more clearly than before. About two-thirds of 
the owners in the North who feel themselves worse off than their neigh¬ 
bors give this response, whereas Negro owners who feel themselves in bad 
circumstances mention it in only one case out of ten. One-fourth of the 
latter group indicate the possession of, or an equity in, farm land or a 
home as the basis for feeling worse off. General living conditions, food 
and/or clothing are mentioned more frequently by Negroes than by whites, 
either Northern or Southern (Table 65). 

Another approach was made to the same problem by means of this 
question, "If you inherited $500 today, what would you do with it?" The 
responses that could be classified as "invest in farm, home, etc." are 
much more frequent among non-owners in the South, both Negro and white, 
than in the North. Less than two in ten Northern tenants say they would 
dispose of their money in this way, while six in ten Negro renters and 
five in ten white renters in the South give the same type of response. 
In the North, payment on obligations, mortgage debts, etc., are mentioned 
most often, both by owners and renters. 

It is obvious that the attitude of the farm- or home-owner toward 
his place is strikingly different from that of a non-owner when we see the 
frequency with which the phrase "farm and/or home improvements" is 
mentioned by the former as desirable, and the rarity with which it appears 
among the responses of the latter. The differences are astonishingly 
large, but they are greater in the South than in the North, and greater 
among the Negroes than among the Southern whites. In other words, the 


- 95 - 


Table 65.- Percentages of farmers who specify certain respects in which 
their families are better off or worse off than the average 

in their neighborhoods. 1/ 


Item ; 

Better off 

: Worse 

off 


Owners 

: Non-owners: Owners : 

Non-owners 

Northern: 

Number of cases 

110 

21 

9 

30 

Percentage specifying: 

Financial conditions 

48 

43 

67 

40 

General living conditions 

17 

38 

— 

7 

Farm/home ownership 

17 

— 

— 

— 

Food and/or clothing 

1 

5 

11 

— 

Southern white: 

Number of cases 

77 

23 

17 

86 

Percentage specifying: 

Financial conditions 

36 

35 

41 

34 

General living conditions 

19 

17 

6 

23 

Farm/home ownership 

32 

13 

6 

12 

Food and/or clothing 

— 

13 

6 

1 

Negro: 

Number of cases 

32 

29 

21 

198 

Percentage specifying: 

Financial conditions 

12 

17 

9 

30 

General living conditions 

22 

41 

14 

26 

Farm/home ownership 

44 

3 

24 

1 

Food and/or clothing 

3 

21 

14 

20 

1 / Omitting percentages for 

those 

reporting 

other reasons 

and those 


not reporting. 


chances that a Negro non—owning farmer who comes into some unexpected 
money would spend any of it in improving the house in which he lives, or 
the farm which he works, are apparently exceedingly slim; on the other 
hand, if he be an owner, he is more likely to dispose of it in this way 
than in any other. 

The fundamental matter of living expenses (food, clothing, etc.) 
rarely occurs to the Northern farmers, and in only a small proportion of 
cases, to the Southern white farmers; but among the Negroes the propor¬ 
tion is insignificant only among owners, increasing to one in ten among 
renters, one in six among croppers, and one in five among laborers. In 
other words, the Negro farm laborer, if we may judge by his iespouses to 
this imaginary situation, would be over twenty times as likely as the 
Northern farm laborer to spend a portion of a cash windfall for food and 









- 96 - 


clothing; and he would make such expenditures about four times as often 
as the Southern white farm laborer. As compared with other tenure classes 
among Negroes, he would probably dispose of his money in this way about 
eleven times as often as the Negro owner, about twice as often as the 
Negro renter, but only slightly more often than the Negro cropper. In 
the North, on the other hand, owners, renters, and laborers show prac¬ 
tically no difference in the likelihood of their using their money for 
living expenses. 

Consistent tenure differences appear in the frequency with which the 
idea of saving an imaginary inheritance occurs, owners giving this re¬ 
sponse most often, laborers least often, while renters and croppers spec¬ 
ify it with a frequency somewhere between these two extremes. However, 
within any tenure class a comparison of sample populations shows that 
Northern farmers mention saving most frequently. Southern whites somewhat 
less, and Negro farmers least of all (Table 66). 

Closely related to one's evaluation of his own condition is the 
way in which he evaluates the conditions of others. Certainly it is of 
importance to learn whether any particular tenure class, regardless of 
region or race, is consistently regarded as being in the most undesirable 
position with respect to all other tenure classes. Therefore, this ques¬ 
tion was asked: "What class of people around here do you think is worst 
off?" 18/ In all three sample populations the tenure class mentioned most 
frequently by the members of any tenure class is the farm laborer. This 
is on the basis of responses of farm laborers themselves. Croppers in the 
South are inclined to think that croppers more frequently than laborers 
are worst off. Renters, regardless of race or region, think that renters 
are worst off, while owners think that owners are worst off, But the 


18/ We did not ask: "What farm tenure class do you think is worst off?" 
We hoped that by the general question we might come to some understanding 
of how farm people tend to think of social classes, of what pigeon-holes 
or categories they use when they think of people in groups. But it was 
difficult to avoid giving suggestions because often the farmers had no 
idea of what "class of people" might mean. We found no burning "class 
consciousness" among the so-called exploited groups. After we had ex¬ 
plained what we were driving at, we found we had sometimes suggested the 
idea of tenure classes. So we could not attach much significance to the 
frequency with which categories other than farm tenure classes were men¬ 
tioned as a basis for classification. For example, "Negroes" are mentioned 
as worst off in the South by both white and colored farmers - more often 
by Negroes than by whites, but we cannot conclude from our figures that 
about 5 percent of white farmers and about 10 percent of colored farmers 
think of race when they think of social class. If we had asked first: 
"Which race do you think is in general worst off?" the Negro group would 
probably have been mentioned much more often. Even so, we think that the 
relative frequency with which the various tenure classes were mentioned 
as being worst off has some significance in and of itself. 







- 97 - 


Table 66.- Percentages of farmers who say they would dispose of hypothet¬ 
ical inheritance of $500 in specified ways 1/ 


Sample population : 
and proposed use ; 

Owners 

Renters 

: Croppers 

: Laborers 

Northern; 

Living expenses 

2 


1 2/ 

1 

Farm operating 
expenses 

8 


27 

9 

Farm and/or home 
improvements 

18 


2 

4 

Pay on obligations 

40 


31 

10 

Invest in farm or 
home 

10 


19 

35 

Save it 

13 


11 

6 

Total number of 

cases 

355 


263 2/ 

69 

Southern white: 

Living expenses 

2 

4 

7 

6 

Farm operating 
expenses 

10 

8 

12 

15 

Farm and/or home 
improvements 

22 

2 

3 

. 

Pay on obligations 

21 

17 

10 

7 

Invest in farm or 
home 

17 

49 

43 

47 

Save it 

13 

8 

9 

6 

Total number of 

cases 

398 

275 

168 

53 

Negro: 

Living expenses 

2 

10 

16 

22 

Farm operating 
expenses 

11 

19 

19 

24 

Farm and/or home 
improvements 

32 

1 

1 

— 

Pay on obligations 

24 

2 

2 

1 

Invest in farm or 

home 

19 

60 

49 

43 

Save it 

7 

3 

5 

3 

Total number of 

cases 

128 

253 

372 

89 


1/ Omitting percentages for "all other" and "no response." 

2/ Figures for Northern croppers included with those for renters. 












, 


- 98 - 


proportion of farm laborers who think that farm laborers are worst off is 
very high compared with the other groups of informants who consider mem¬ 
bers of their own tenure class to be worst off. Among Southern whites, 
for instance, there are, relatively, five farm laborers who say that 
laborers are worst off to every owner who says that owners are worst off. 
Among farmers in the North, similarly, there are two laborers who say that 
laborers are worst off to every owner who says that owners are worst off. 
In the South, after farm laborers, croppers are mentioned most frequently 
as being worst off. The proportion mentioning croppers is highest among 
croppers, lower among farm laborers, still lower among renters, and lowest 
among owners. 

Several differences between the sample populations may be pointed 
out. Fewer farmers in the North than in the South give a definite re¬ 
sponse of any kind, suggesting again better general circumstances or less 
clear class differentiations. Unemployed farm laborers or displaced 
tenants are mentioned as being worst off by about one white farmer in 
twenty in the South, but by no Northern farmers and practically no Negro 
farmers. Relief, rehabilitation, or Works Progress Administration clients 
are never mentioned by Negroes as being worst off. Occasionally they are 
indicated by both Northern and Southern white farmers. In the South 
white farmers sometimes mention the white race as being worst off, but 
Negroes never do, while, on the other hand, both Negroes and whites men¬ 
tion Negroes as being the worst off in a relatively small but perceptible 
number of cases (Table 67). 

One further topic remains: how do farmers account for these var¬ 
ious classes of people being "worst off"? The question asked was: "What 
do you think causes them (that is, the class specified as worst off) to be 
worst off?" Let us begin with the class mentioned most frequently, 
farm laborers. According to laborers themselves, in all three of the 
sample populations, the most important factor is the smallness of their 
income or wages. If we combine the explanations given my members of all 
tenure classes other than laborers, we find that there is much less close 
agreement, the proportions of non-laborers giving this explanation being 
much smaller than laborers among whites, and slightly smaller among 
Negroes. The next most important factor is thought to be the infrequency 
or irregularity of work available to the farm laborer. In this case, 
again, laborers and non—laborers seem to be in much closer agreement among 
Negroes than they are among whites; furthermore, irregularity of work is 
mentioned by Negro laborers more often than by non-laborers, while white 
farm laborers mention this difficulty considerably less often than do 
white non-laborers (Table 68-A). 

Croppers are regarded as worse off so rarely in the North, that it 
is impossible to analyze the factors regarded as responsible, but in the 
South this procedure yields some striking findings. The frequency with 
which the explanations of Southern colored farmers involve the idea of 
unfair treatment, or injustice of some sort, as responsible for the 
cropper's plight is of indubitable significance. Among Negroes, this 


- 99 - 


Table 67.- Percentages of farmers who specify certain classes in 

their neighborhoods as ’’worst off” 1/ 


Class considered : : : : 

’’worst off” : Owners : Renters : Croppers : Laborers 


Northern: 

Owners 

19 

Renters 

9 

Croppers 

— 

Laborers 

19 

"Farmers” 

— 

Displaced or 

unemployed 

— 

Relief clients 

2 

White folk 

— 

Negroes 

— 

"Shiftless” 

- 

"All bad off” 

13 

Southern white: 

Owners 

11 

Renters 

16 

Croppers 

14 

Laborers 

15 

"Farmers” 

4 

Displaced or 

unemployed 

5 

Relief clients 

2 

White folk 

3 

Negroes 

5 

"Shiftless” 

2 

"All bad off” 

8 

Negro: 

Owners 

9 

Renters 

5 

Croppers 

26 

Laborers 

25 

"Farmers” 

— 

Displaced or 

unemployed 

1 

Relief clients 

— 

White folk 

- 


15 2/ 10 

12 6 

19 39 


3 6 


11 7 

2 3 2 

18 14 7 

17 26 7 

21 14 53 

5 6 4 

5 6- 

3 1- 
1 

3 5 2 

2 2 2 

5 8 2 

1 

17 3 - 

24 43 19 

25 25 45 

1 


9 10 17 


Negroes 
"Shiftless” 

"All bad off” 

1/ Omitting percentages for those who did not respond. For total num¬ 

ber of cases on which percentages were based see Table 131, p. 251. 

2/ Figures for Northern croppers included with those for renters. 






- 100 - 


Table 68-A.- Percentages of farmers who specify certain oauses for farm laborers' families being worst off 


* 


Northern » 

Southern white s 


Negro 

Cause : 

t 

i Other than : 

Laborers i laborers i 

Laborers 

: Other than i 
: laborers t 

Laborers 

s Other than 

i laborers 

Low income or wages 

74 

35 

57 

2k 

55 

45 

Irregular work or 
unamployment 

18 

34 

36 

h9 

35 

29 

Total number report¬ 
ing 

27 

117 

28 

lho 

ho 

189 


Table 68-B.- Percentages of southern farmers Tfbo speoify oertain 

oauses for oroppers' families being worst off 

t 


Southern white 

: 

Negro 

Cause t 

Croppers 

i Other than oroppers 

t Croppers 

t Other than croppers 

Low income or wages 

111 

9 

21 

12 

Irregular work or 

unemployment 

1 

9 

3 

4 

"Shiftlessness" and 

bad management 

7 

34 

1 

5 

Unfairness or in- 

justice 

7 

8 

33 

3k 

Inadequate resources 

9 

9 

5 

6 

Credit arrangements 

5 

2 

h 

i+ 

Crop failure 

12 

6 

1 

i 

Total number report- 

ing 

43 

105 

159 

110 


Table 68-C.- Percentages 

of white 

farmers who specify certain 

causes for renters' families being worst off 

t 


Northern 

i 

Southern white 

Cause t 

Renters 

t Other than renters 

t Renters 

i Other than renters 

Low income or profits 

21 

3k 

k 

3 

Irregular work or 

unemployment 

- 

- 

6 

3 

"Shiftlessness" and 

bad management 

- 

3 

6 

19 

Unfairness or in- 

justice 

6 

9 

6 

3 

Inadequate resources 

- 

- 

2k 

22 

Credit arrangement 

3 

3 

6 

1 

Crop failure 

21 

20 

20 

19 

Depression or low 

prioes 

12 

6 

2 

6 

Total number report- 

ing 

33 

35 

k9 

90 


Table 68-D.- Percentages 

of white 

farmers who speoify oertain oauses for 

owners' families being worst off 

t 


Northern s 


Southern white 

Cause t 

Owners 

< Other than owners t 

Owners 

i Other than owners 

Low inoame or profits 

1 

k 

5 


Bad management 

Unfairness or in- 

1 

m 

2 

- 

justioe 

m 

- 

5 

• 

Credit arrangement 

70 

62 

17 

17 

Crop failure 

k 

8 

17 

25 

Depression or low prioes 

9 

6 

2k 

25 

land boom or speculation 

7 

17 

- 


High taxes 

m 

- 

14 

«. 

Total number reporting 

69 

k7 

h2 

12 



















- 101 - 


explanation is given in about one out of every three responses. Among 
white farmers in the South, where it occurs likewise, it appears in about 
one case out of fifteen. In other words, this sort of explanation is 
about five times as frequent among the responses of Negroes as among those 
of white farmers in the South, The implications of these findings point 
to better understanding not only of the migration of Negroes from farms to 
towns and cities, but also of their emigration from the South - their es¬ 
cape from treatment and conditions which they regard as basically unfair. 

In the sharpest possible contrast to the foregoing explanation is 
that mentioned most frequently by white farmers, other than croppers, in 
the South; "shiftlessness, laziness, bad management, ignorance, etc." 
Croppers themselves find the explanation for their condition in this fac¬ 
tor about one-fifth as often as farmers other than croppers. In other 
words, among all farmers other than croppers about one in every three who 
thinks that croppers are worst off attributes this condition to shift¬ 
lessness, while only about one out of fifteen croppers themselves thinks 
this to be the real explanation. Returning to a consideration of Negro 
responses regarding croppers, we find that this same factor of shift¬ 
lessness is mentioned only about one-seventh as often by Negro non-crop¬ 
pers as by white non-croppers, and by only about one in one hundred Negro 
croppers who feel their class to be worst off (Table 63—B). 

Renters are so rarely regarded by Negroes as worst off that this 
tenure class will be considered only in the white sample populations. 
Renters in the North blame low income or small profits just as often as 
crop failure due to drought, hail, etc. These two factors alone account 
for two-fifths of all responses among renters. Over one-third of those 
other than renters who regard renters as being worst off specify the 
factor of low income or small profits. Adverse weather conditions are 
mentioned considerably less frequently. Inadequate capital, bad crop con¬ 
ditions, and shiftlessness or bad management on the part of the renter are 
thought to be significant factors by farmers other than renters in the 
South. Among Southern renters, on the other hand, crop failure seems to 
stand out as the most important factor; inadequate capital follows. Bad 
management and shiftlessness are regarded as no more important than un¬ 
satisfactory credit arrangements, unfairness and injustice, or irregular 
work and unemployment (Table 68-C). 

Regional differences between white farmers who regard owners as 
being worst off are very great. Northern farm owners in over two cases 
out of three say they are worst off because of unsatisfactory credit 
arrangements, while only one in six Southern owners makes a similar claim. 
Non-owners, both North and South, mention this factor with similar fre¬ 
quencies. The most important factors, according to non-owners in the 
South, are geographic (bad crop conditions) and economic (low prices and 
the depression). These two categories account for half of all Southern 
non-owners' explanations. Southern owners, on the other hand, are think- 
ing just as much of high taxes as they are of the depression and low 
prices, when they account for their being worst off (Table 68-D). 


- 102 - 


Chapter IV 

THE AGRICULTURAL LADDER: HOW IS IT WORKING? 


The Basic Problem: What Does the Idea Involve, and How Well 

Does It Fit Conditions Tc d ay ? 

It is impossible to discuss the farm tenancy problem at length 
without hearing about the "agricultural ladder." But, it is not at all 
certain that the idea of the ladder has the same implications for all 
people, that it means the same today as it did a generation ago, or that 
the basic conditions which it was originally intended to describe still 
remain. 


The common conception of the agricultural ladder, as indicated in 
Chapter II, is that within the occupation of farming there exists a hier¬ 
archy of tenure classes through which the farmer normally passes somewhat 
as follows: beginning as a farm laborer with few resources, or none at 
all besides his own strength and determination, he receives a fixed wage 
and acquires experience, independence, and confidence while working for 
someone else. In the course of time, when he has developed these traits 
to a sufficient extent, he is able to climb to the next higher rung, that 
of a cropper. In this status his landlord furnishes not only the land 
but also most of the operating capital, and shares with him in the pro¬ 
ceeds and risks of farming. Having evolved the aforementioned traits to 
a higher degree and having acquired some working capital, the cropper 
climbs up another step, assumes all or most of the risks of farming, pays 
simply for the use of his landlord's land, and makes all the profit he 
can from its cultivation. When he has secured enough cash to start pay¬ 
ing on a piece of land, he climbs the precarious final step up to farm 
ownership. 19/ This in essence is the traditional conception of the 
agricultural ladder, its nature and its functioning. The concept is the 
legitimate offspring of a classically rational economics wedded to a 
youthful agriculture. But many a question is to be raised regarding the 
soundness of the theory before its present social acceptability can be 
established. 


19/ This stage may or may not be divided into subclasses of ownership, 
such as the part-owner (who owns a portion of the land farmed, but rents 
the remainder from someone else), the mortgaged owner (who has a mort¬ 
gage equity in all the land he farms), and the full owner (who owns his 
farms, free of encumbrance). The landlord, however, especially when he 
fulfills the modern mid-western mode by achieving a comfortable old age 
of retirement in California or on the Gulf, represents an epicurean anti¬ 
climax, fitting none too well into the rational traditional scheme of 
the agricultural ladder. 





The first question we raise is this: "Is the ladder the same 
length from time to time and from place to place within this country?" 
In other words, is the number of rungs to be climbed in order to get to 
the top of the ladder a constant one? It is well known that there are 
not many sharecroppers in the North but that they are very numerous in 
the South. It would seem hardly correct, then, to regard climbing the 
ladder in the North and in the South as the same thing, when the ascent 
in the South involves one more step of differentiation. This is not to 
say it thereby becomes more or less difficult to start at the bottom 
and climb to the top but it is certainly different. 

As to whether the ladder remains the same length, there also is 
an important question: "Does the space between rungs remain constant 
from time to time and from place to place?" If the ladder idea fits the 
situation at all well, the farmer improves his condition step by step, 
or rung by rung, and the gap that separates the first step from the 
second is not vastly different from that separating any other two steps. 
We want to know whether or not the climb from the bottom of the ladder 
as farm laborer to the top as farm owner is separated into equal 
steps, renters being as far below owners as they are above croppers, and 
croppers as far above laborers as they are below owners? Furthermore, we 
should like to know whether in different parts of the country the regu¬ 
larity or irregularity of the spacing of rungs on the ladder remains 
basically the same. Finally we want to find out whether the gap sepa¬ 
rating laborers from croppers, or renters from owners, for example, is 
the same today as it was when our grandfathers were young. There are 
many indications that the intervining distances do not remain the same: 
in one region the distance separating two particular tenure classes may 
be much greater than that between two tenure classes bearing the same 
name elsewhere. Furthermore, the gap in general seems to be greater to¬ 
day than it was a generation or two earlier. 

A third question is this: "Is the steepness of the climb about 
the same from time to time and from place to place?" In other words, 
does a farmer have to strain and exert himself just as hard in order to 
make the climb now as formerly, or are the obstacles in one place as 
great today as in another? Some important factors are beyond the control 
of the individual farmer. They include such influences as: changing 
climatic or weather conditions; changes in the water table or in the 
quantity or quality of the topsoil, drought, dust and flood, all more or 
less due to the operation of numberless farmers of earlier generations 
of contemporaries in other regions, or of both; variations in the diffi¬ 
culty of getting farm products to market; and the maze of factors that 
affect the world price level of what the farmer produces, such factors 
as expanding or contracting markets and expanding or contracting sources 
of supply of the same products elsewhere. 

In other words, it seems not at all correct to consider the agri¬ 
cultural ladder, regardless of other circumstances, as maintaining a 







- 104 - 


constant degree of steepness and involving just so much effort or ex¬ 
ertion or skill to climb from one rung to the next. 

A fourth point of inquiry is this: "Does everyone start climbing 
at the bottom rung?" It would seem, if the ladder idea be a correct 
picture of conditions that farmers all start from the same uniform level. 
It may have been true in the old days when one could go West, comply with 
the homestead regulations, and in the course of time become a farm owner; 
perhaps then everyone started more or less from scratch, and the faster 
one ran the farther one would get. But our farm country is no longer a 
wilderness waiting to be brought under cultivation: roads are already 
here, houses and barns have been built, fences have been put up, marshy 
places have been tiled, and dry places have had moisture brought to them, 

Everyone knows how a farmer likes to pass on the old family place 
to an industrious son. Such a son a few generations ago, even if he had 
inherited farm property from his father, could not have inherited so much 
as he does today, for a great deal still remained to be done. But in 
these times the son who is faithful in little things on the family farm 
eventually becomes the ruler over its many acres, and he has a going con¬ 
cern to start with. Many a young farmer today begins, not at the bottom 
of the ladder, but on one of the higher rungs. 

A fifth question may fairly be asked: "Does everyone climb to the 
top?" The agricultural ladder is usually thought of as something to be 
climbed to the top, not as something which offers equally attractive 
possibilities whether one stops on one rung or another. The rungs in the 
ladder are thought to be more like footholds, perhaps rough and uncomfort¬ 
able, but useful as points of vantage from which to climb to levels more 
suitable for permanent residence. In reality, the agricultural ladder is 
not a kind of escalator that will eventually carry one to the top. 

It is probably the fact that an increasingly larger proportion of 
farmers who started for the top of the ladder are failing to arrive, that 
is causing widespread concern about farm tenancy. Nobody is alarmed over 
the fact that babies today are just as helpless as they were a thousand 
years ago, because babies in the normal course of events become children, 
then youths, then adults. Imagine the consternation, however, if some 
mysterious malady should attack American babies leaving them in such a 
condition that larger and larger proportions of them stopped maturing in 
youth, or childhood, or infancy, and if constantly declining proportions 
reached adulthood. Then we would be alarmed about the baby problem. 

Most of the factors so far discussed have been those external to 
the individual, but the makeup of the farmer himself should not be over¬ 
looked. There is this question, for example, "Is the urge to climb the 
ladder the same among all farmers?" Some people are strong, others are 
weak, some enjoy exercise, others prefer quiet, and some definitely pre¬ 
fer taking orders from others to assuming responsibility. If you were 


- 105 - 


to examine a hundred tarm boys picked at random, it is highly improbable 
that the same degiee of ambition, whether to farm, to become owners, or 
to do or to become anything else, would be found in each of them. All 
farmers are not necessarily driven by urges of the same strength to climb 
the tenure ladder. As a matter of fact, differences in degree of ambition 
are by no means the whore story, for the most ambitious farmer might pre¬ 
fer to buy no land at all, using his capital to rent and operate larger 
acreages than he could buy, There is the further question of the per¬ 
sistence of the climbing urge from one period to another. If the relative 
advantage or disadvantage of a particular tenure status does not remain 
constant, the strength of the farmer’s desire to achieve it may vary cor¬ 
respondingly, 

One final question remains: "Is climbing the tenure ladder an 
individual or a family matter?" This point has already been touched upon 
in connection with the question, "Do all farmers begin at the bottom of 
the ladder?" But it must be emphasized that the idea of a ladder by 
means of which the farmer can climb fails completely to take into account 
the importance of kinship groups - parents and grandparents, brothers and 
sisters, uncles and aunts, as well as more distant relatives — and the 
part they play in his success or failure. The pioneer, rarely accompa¬ 
nied by many relatives, could easily be thought of as a lone individual 
and largely responsible for his own success or failure. Now the farm boy 
usually grows up as but one member of a closely-knit group whose circum¬ 
stances, possessions, interests and connections will be powerful influ¬ 
ences in his own career. The isolated, purely rational individual is 
regarded today as the most significant unit only by an antiquated eco¬ 
nomics. Any comprehensive or realistic consideration of the farmer and 
his experiences with the agricultural ladder and its workings must take 
into account the influences of kinship groups, and particularly of the 
family. 


It may not seem certain that the idea of a ladder is the most 
accurate figure of speech for expressing the relationship between the 
various tenure classes, or that "climbing the ladder" is the most suit¬ 
able term for describing the process of moving from one tenure class to 
another. In any event, there is a basic patterning of behavior regard¬ 
ing which significant differences between regions, race groups, and 
tenure classes may be shown. We shall consider in this chapter some of 
the most important of these elements in the farmers' lifetime patterns 
and the bearing of a number of previously indicated factors upon farmers' 
tenure histories. 

How Long Does It Take to Get Th ere: _A verage Age of 

Male Farmers, by Tenure Status 

One of the fundamental problems to be considered regarding the 
functioning of the agricultural ladder is the number of years it takes 
a man, on the average, to move from the bottom to the top. The most 








- 106 - 


clearly apparent finding is that, in each of the sample groups, landlords 
are by far the oldest; full owners are younger than landlords; part-owners 
are younger than full owners; unrelated renters are younger than part- 
owners; and related renters are younger than those whose landlords are not 
Kinsfolk. 

At this point differences begin to appear between Northern and 
Southern farmers, and between white and Negro farmers in the South. 
Among Negroes the renters, croppers, and laborers who are dealing with 
relatives form a group which is, throughout, younger on the average than 
the renters, croppers, and laborers who are dealing with non-relatives. 
In other words, the age sequence, from oldest to youngest, is as follows: 
unrelated renters; unrelated croppers; unrelated laborers; related rent¬ 
ers; related croppers; and finally, related laborers. Among white farm¬ 
ers, kinship to landlord seems to be less significant, for the related 
renters are just as old as, if not older than, the croppers renting from 
non-relatives; but among Negroes, the related renters are much younger 
than the unrelated croppers. The small number of laborers working for 
relatives in both the North and the South prevents our attaching too 
much significance to the average ages determined for members of these 
groups. But in the case of unrelated laborers the numbers involved are 
large enough to justify us in regarding as important the finding that 
unrelated laborers in each sample population are older than related 
croppers. Unrelated laborers in the North are of the same average age 
as are renters dealing with relatives. This would suggest either that 
the status of farm laborer is coming to be regarded as an acceptable 
permanent status by Northern farmers or that these men, if they are actu¬ 
ally trying to climb the ladder, are laboring under much more serious 
handicaps than either croppers or related renters. These facts provide 
a necessary background for the next topic - the degree of success or 
failure reported by our farmers with respect to climbing the agricultural 
ladder (Table 69). 

How the Ladder Has Been Working: Farmers' Tenure Histories 

Let us begin by classifying our farmers according to the various 
tenure classes in which they started their farming careers. On this 
basis the general relationship between the farmer's first tenure status 
and his present tenure status quickly becomes apparent. If a farmer be¬ 
gan as a landowner, three possibilities exist with respect to his tenure 
history; first, he may have remained a landowner (either landlord, full 
owner, or part-owner) for the duration of his experience; second, he 
may have dropped from landowner to renter, cropper, or laborer, but later 
he may have recovered his former status; finally, he may have started as 
landowner, but, subsequently becoming a renter, cropper, or laborer, he 
may have continued in one of the lower tenure statuses until the present 
time. In each sample population by far the largest proportion of farm¬ 
ers beginning as owners are now in the same tenure status (Table 70). 



- 107 - 


Table 69.- Average ages of male farmers 


Tenure status 

Northern : 

Southern 

white : 


Negro 

Number 

:Average: 

: age : 

Number : 

Average: 
age : 

:Average 
Number : age 

Landlord 

95 

62.2 

171 

56.3 

24 

55.5 

Full owner 

145 

53.9 

149 

50.2 

67 

51.9 

Part-owner 

95 

50.5 

39 

47.4 

18 

48.4 

Related renter 

67 

40.9 

61 

38.3 

18 

32.3 

Unrelated renter 

179 

42.8 

210 

45.3 

227 

46.2 

Related cropper 

10 

35.7 

37 

34.6 

16 

27.8 

Unrelated cropper 

6 

37.5 

130 

38.8 

333 

41.7 

Related laborer 

9 

33.4 

5 

41.4 

2 

26.0 

Unrelated laborer 

60 

41.2 

46 

37.0 

80 

39.8 


Table 70.- Percentages of farmers beginning in specified tenure classes, 
whose present status is higher than, same as, or lower 

than first tenure status 

Sample population 

and first 
tenure status 

: Total : 

: number : 

: of cases : 

Percentage whose present status is - 

Higher 

The same : 

Lower 

North: 





Owners 

85 

— 

94 

6 

Renters 

263 

55 

43 

2 

Croppers 

45 

80 

16 

4 

Laborers 

295 

78 

22 


Southern white: 





Owners 

220 

— 

85 

15 

Renters 

304 

38 

50 

12 

Croppers 

253 

54 

44 

2 

Laborers 

117 

71 

29 

— 

Negro: 





Owners 

27 

- 

89 

11 

Renters 

173 

21 

64 

15 

Croppers 

470 

31 

61 

8 

Laborers 

172 

76 

24 






















The successful type of tenure history is reported most frequently 
among Northern farmers, less frequently among Southern whites, and least 
frequently among Negro farmers. A marked difference appears between the 
proportions of successful croppers in the North and in the South, the 
former having climbed higher far more often than the latter. With the 
exception of the Southern white croppers, the proportions of farmers who 
subsequently sank lower than their first tenure status are smaller in 
the North than in the South. Southern white farmers beginning as land- 
owners and Negro farmers beginning as renters, judged on the basis of 
this comparison, seem to hold the most precarious positions, 15 percent 
in either instance having later dropped to a lower tenure status. In 
brief, the majority of Northern farmers who began as laborers, croppers, 
and renters, were, at the time of our inquiry, higher on the ladder than 
when they began farming. This is also true in the South of laborers, 
both white and Negro, and of white croppers. But only one-third of the 
white renters, less than one-third of the Negro croppers, and only one- 
fifth of the Negro renters, report similar net upward movement (Table 70). 

Another way to determine how the agricultural ladder is function¬ 
ing is to look back, after classifying the farmers, at the tenure status 
they occupied when they first began farming. This approach will show, 
from another point of view, whether present owners, renters, croppers, 
and laborers in the course of their lifetime have actually climbed, 
fallen, or come out on the same tenure plane. Present white owners in 
the South more frequently than present owners in the North or among 
Negroes began their farming careers as owners. Just about one-half of 
the white owners in the South have actually climbed from lower tenure 
statuses to landownership, whereas owners in the other two sample popu¬ 
lations have climbed to their present positions in practically four cases 
out of every five. In other words, there are over two white owners in 
the South who began farming as owners for every one in the other two 
sample populations. Taking up the remaining tenure classes in the North, 
we see that over one-half of the present renters in the North have 
climbed to that status from beginnings either as laborers or croppers. 
This is true of even a larger proportion of the Negro renters, but of 
only about one-third of the white renters in the South. Likewise about 
one-third of the Northern croppers have climbed from the farm laborer 
status, while less than one-half as many croppers in the South, either 
white or Negro, have made a similar ascent. 

Present farm laborers in the North only rarely report having begun 
on a higher rung of the agricultural ladder. About one-fourth advanced 
to other tenure statuses and then dropped back, but the majority began 
in the laborer status and have never left it. 20/ In the South the pro¬ 
portions of farm laborers who began farming on higher levels (probably 


20/ It should be noted that the percentages in the column headed "Same" 
include both these types of tenure history. 



- 109 - 


largely as croppers) are striking in size. In fact, the Negro farm labor¬ 
ers beginning at other points on the ladder outnumber those who actually 
began as farm laborers. The proportion of white farm laborers, both 
Northern and Southern, who have climbed and fallen back into the laborer 
status is a sizeable fraction of all present farm laborers. We do not 
know whether this reversal of the traditional pattern was due to choice or 
necessity. But in either case it must be recognized that the ordinary 
conception of how the agricultural ladder works is far from the truth. 
Furthermore, it would seem clear from the comparisons we draw as we look 
back at tenure class origins, that the Southern white farmer has had 
about as much difficulty as, if not more than, the Negro in climbing the 
ladder. The Negro farm laborer alone seems to be worse off in this re¬ 
spect than the white farmer of the same status. The Northern farmer, on 
the other hand, although he has not escaped reverses, has been able more 
consistently to climb higher than his origin level on the tenure ladder 
(Table 71). 

So far we have considered only the summary of farmers' lifetimes 
by comparing their first tenure status with their present status without 
reference to the time span involved or without reference to the time, if 
it was reported, at which reverses took place. What may be learned from 
analyzing all reversals of the normal procedure - all instances in which 
farmers dropped from one tenure status to another that was lower? Four¬ 
teen percent of all Northern farmers, 18 percent of all Southern white, 
and 22 percent of all Negro farmers report that they suffered, one or more 
reverses, the average number per farmer reporting any reversals being 1.2 
in the North and 1.3 in the South (Table 72). 

These reversals may be classified into three types: first, those 
in which an owner drops to the status of renter, cropper or laborer; 
second, those in which a renter drops to cropper or laborer; and third, 
those in which a cropper becomes a laborer. Over half of all drops re¬ 
ported in the North are those in which an owner became a renter or labor¬ 
er, and of these practically six-sevenths are cases in which the owner 
became a renter. Not an instance of an owner becoming a cropper is re¬ 
ported, while one-seventh of the descending owners went down to the status 
of laborer. Changes from renter to cropper or laborer represent about 
one-third of all reversals in the North, and of these seven-eighths are 
drops from renter to laborer, only one-eighth of descending renters stop¬ 
ping in the cropper status. Less than one in ten of all drops reported 
by Northern farmers involve a shift from cropper to laborer status. 

• f: j.ilL r. ., 

Among Southern whites the drops from the status of owner to some 
lower tenure class and from the status of renter to something lower are 
of about equal frequency, together accounting for five-sixths of all 
instances of reversals. Only one—sixth of all reversals in tenure status 
are from cropper to laborer. Of the descending owners about three—fourths 
became renters, about one out of five dropped straight from owner to 
cropper, and only a small proportion, about seven in one hundred, dropped 



- 110 - 


Table 71.- Percentages of farmers classified by present tenure status, 
whose present tenure status is higher than, same as, 
or lower than, first tenure status 




Percentage reporting present status 

which is - 

Present 



Same as 

;Same as first, 


tenure 

Total 

Higher 

first, no 

: intervening 

Lower 

status 

number 

than 

change 

: changes of 

than 


of cases 

first 

of status 

: status 

first 

Northern: 






Owners 

355 

77.5 

21.7 

0.8 

— 

Renters 

247 

52.6 

40.5 

5.2 

1.6 

Croppers 

16 

37.5 

43.8 

• 

18.7 

Laborers 

69 

— 

68.1 

24.7 

7.2 

Southern white: 





Owners 

398 

53.0 

44.7 

2.3 

— 

Renters 

275 

37.1 

48.7 

6.9 

7.3 

Croppers 

168 

13.1 

54.8 

10.7 

21.4 

Laborers 

53 

- 

35.8 

28.4 

35.8 

Negro: 






Owners 

128 

81.2 

17.2 

1.6 

— 

Renters 

253 

55.7 

38.4 

5.1 

.8 

Croppers 

372 

18.6 

65.6 

11.0 

4.8 

Laborers 

89 

— 

37.1 

9.0 

53.9 


Table 72.- Percentages of farmers who report having descended the 
agricultural ladder one or more times during their farming 
careers, and proportions of these farmers classified by 
status from which descent was made 


Item 

: Northern 

• • 

• • 

: Southern white : 

Negro 

Total number of cases 

687 

894 

842 

Percent descending 

14.3 

18.5 

22.0 

Number descending 

113 

208 

235 

Highest status previously 




reached (percentage): 




Owners 

56.6 

43.8 

10.6 

Renters 

34.5 

39.9 

53.2 

Croppers 

8.8 

16.3 

36.2 

















- Ill - 


from owner to laborer. The drop from owner to cropper accounts for 20 per¬ 
cent of descending Southern owners, but for none of the descending North¬ 
ern owners. When we consider the drops of renters to lower statuses, we 
find an even more striking distinction between the North and the South, 
for the white renter in the South three times out of four lands as a 
cropper, while an even greater proportion of descending renters in the 
North go straight to the laborer status. Finally, the proportion of all 
reported drops among Southern whites that consist of a fall from cropper 
to laborer is about twice as large as in the North (Table 73). 


Table 73.- Farmers who report descending the agricultural ladder one or 

more times, classified by type of descent 


Type of descent 

: Northern 

■ • 

• • 

; Southern white : 

Negro 

From owner status: 

Total number of cases 

64 

91 

25 

Percent who became: 

Renter 

86 

72 

56 

Cropper 

— 

21 

36 

Laborer 

14 

7 

8 

From renter status: 

Total number of cases 

39 

83 

125 

Percent who became: 

Cropper 

13 

72 

81 

Laborer 

87 

28 

19 

From cropper to laborer 
status: 

Total number of cases 

10 

34 

85 


Reversals of the normal tenure history are most frequent, both 
absolutely and relatively, among Negro farmers. Relatively the most 
frequent drop, however, among Negro farmers is from renter to cropper or 
laborer. Over half of all colored farmers' drops are of this type, while 
only one in ten is from the status of owner to something lower. The 
importance of the drop from cropper to laborer among Negroes may be seen 
clearly when we note that 36 percent of all reversals in tenure history 
are of this type, this proportion being over twice as great among Negroes 
as among Southern white farmers and four times as great as among Northern 
farmers (Table 72). Although a majority of descending Negro owners drop 
from owner to renter, it is significant that over one—third of them go 
from owner straight to cropper, a proportion almost twice as great as 








- 112 - 



LU 

CJ 

cr 

LxJ 

CL 


o 

CD 


o o 

in tj- 


o o 

CO CM 


o 


o 


u 


o 


89 


L ECO 

NOW 

• 

CM 


LTURAI 

WHO 

1 NED 

CO 

co 

=> < 
^ (0 h 

£r a: h- 


cd 

% UJ < 

cr 

CO 

o 

-Q 

o ° &■ 

C0 LI 

LO 

c \3 

< < > 

CM 

1 

LJ -I LI 


BUR 

AND 

HAVE 


CO 

LO 


oo 

CM 

1^ 

CM 

00 

6 

UJ 


CO > 

X LJ 
LI X 
CL h- 
CL 

O I- 

x co 

O LI 
X 


CO 

CO 

*> o 
CO — 

CD 


cr x 

«— 

CD 

LI 



H- LI 



2 X 

in 

o 

LJ h- 
IX 


O 

z 

CM 

ENT 

TH A 



cO 

LI X 

cr d 
Q- S 
o 

L _J 

O 


CD 

CD 



CM 


cr 

LJ 

00 


CO 



CO 

o 


LI 

H 


O 

< 


< 

1— 

CO 

1- 

cO 


Z 


CD 

LJ 

LJ 

'LJ 

O 

X 

C2 £ 

X 

D 

CD 3 

LI 

2 

* g 

CL 

LJ 

H 

— LJ 

1 


cr 

• 

< 

o 

LO 


< 


> 

L. 


X 

o 

LI 

D 

1— 

X 

O 

Z 

LJ 

D 

O 

Z 

O 

o 

J- 

— 


tr 

Ll 


< 



a. 



LI 



o 



c/> 



3 





































































- 113 - 


among white owners in the South. This is a type of drop not reported at 
all by descending owners in the North. Negro renters four times out of 
five drop to cropper status, which is not far from the proportion found 
among descending white renters (Table 73). 

Now let us consider those farmers who at present occupy a tenure 
status lower than they have held at any time before. In this comparison 
we shall not be considering present owners. The question is, what pro¬ 
portion of present renters, croppers, and farm laborers look back upon 
some period in their farming history when they were higher on the agri¬ 
cultural ladder than they now are? About 16 percent of Northern renters 
have once been owners, while twice this proportion of Northern croppers 
and laborers have held some higher status. Among Southern whites the 
proportion of present renters who have previously been owners is practi¬ 
cally the same as in the North. Farm laborers in the South, on the other 
hand, about twice as often as in the North have held some higher status. 
Among Negro farmers we find that only 4 percent of the present renters 
have ever been owners, and only 18 percent of all present croppers have 
ever held a higher tenure status. These proportions, being much smaller 
than those found among white farmers, suggest that the Negro farmer, once 
he becomes either a renter or an owner, clings more tenaciously to this 
higher tenure status than does the white farmer; or else, that the white 
farmer, if he is equally tenacious in his efforts, are less successful 
than those of the Negro farmer. Negro laborers, on the other hand, just as 
frequently as Southern white laborers have previously held a higher sta¬ 
tus. Briefly, we may say that about one-third of the white croppers, both 
Northern and Southern, and two-thirds of the Southern laborers, both white 
and colored, have previously held a higher tenure status than that which 
they now hold. In view of the relatively small number of croppers to be 
found in the North, it would seem that the most significance is to be 
found in the proportions of Southern farmers, croppers and especially 
laborers, for whom the agricultural ladder has functioned in reverse 
(Fig. 16). 

Among all farmers whose tenure histories involve reversals, or 
drops down the agricultural ladder, what proportions have achieved as the 
highest tenure status ever attained the status of owner, of renter, or of 
cropper? By far the largest proportion (76 percent) of such farmers in 
the North have once been owners, and, therefore, may now be either 
renters, croppers, or farm laborers. About one-fifth of such farmers have 
once been renters and are now either croppers or laborers. Only one- 
twentieth have once been croppers and are now farm laborers. The relative 
size of the first of these three categories decreases abruptly as we go 
from Southern white to Negro farmers, while the second two categories in¬ 
crease in size with similar suddenness. Among Negro farmers who have 
dropped down the agricultural ladder, the proportion whose high point on 
the ladder was ownership is comparatively small, about 16 percent. The 
proportion who once were renters and are now croppers or laborers is 
practically 60 percent, and the proportion who once were croppers and 



-114- 


Table 75.- (A) Total numbers of individuals engaged in farming; (B) numbers 
reporting lower tenure status than that held during preceding year; 
and (C) percentage that (B) is of (A) for preceding year 


Year 

• 

• 

Northern 


: S outhern white 

• 

• 

Negro 


: (AT 

T '(b)' " Y 

1C) 

« UTT 

(B) 

: (C) 

s (A) 

: (B) s 

(c) . . 

1936 

687 

3 

.4 

894 

21 

2.4 

842 

28 

3.4 

1935 

672 

5 

.8 

865 

8 

1.0 

817 

20 

2.5 

1934 

664 

8 

1.2 

830 

15 

1.8 

798 

16 

2.1 

1933 

646 

3 

.5 

817 

9 

1.1 

773 

12 

1.6 

1932 

636 

13 

2.1 

786 

4 

l.S 

755 

9 

1.2 

1931 

618 

6 

.9 

759 

7 

.9 

727 

7 

1.0 

1930 

605 

6 

1.0 

739 

9 

1.3 

707 

10 

1.5 

1929 

599 

2 

.3 

720 

7 

1.0 

688 

8 

1.2 

1928 

582 

7 

1.2 

689 

7 

1.0 

655 

8 

1.3 

1927 

567 

3 

.5 

670 

6 

.9 

625 

10 

1.7 

1925 

547 

2 

.4 

660 

4 

.6 

592 

7 

1.2 

1925 

535 

3 

.6 

629 

4 

.7 

566 

4 

.9 

1924 

508 

4 

.8 

606 

5 

.9 

546 

4 

.7 

1923 

494 

1 

.2 

606 

6 

1.0 

538 

6 

l.l 

1922 

487 

4 

.9 

580 

1 

.2 

521 

5 

1.0 

1921 

470 

1 

.2 

564 

9 

1.6 

499 

11 

2.3 

1920 

462 

2 

.4 

546 

8 

1.5 

484 

8 

1.5 

1919 

447 

5 

1.1 

522 

2 

.4 

462 

1 

.2 

1918 

436 

1 

.2 

502 

5 

1.0 

432 

2 

.5 

1917 

423 

5 

1.2 

479 

10 

2.1 

421 

1 

.2 

1916 

415 

1 

.2 

469 

2 

.4 

403 

9 

2.3 

1915 

414 

1 

.3 

459 

3 

.7 

386 

4 

1.1 

1914 

400 

2 

.5 

435 

5 

1.2 

369 

2 

.6 

1913 

379 

2 

.6 

406 

1 

.3 

350 

3 

.9 

1912 

363 

- 

- 

381 

- 

- 

339 

4 

1.2 

1911 

350 

1 

.3 

369 

7 

r\o 

• 

O 

321 

4 

1.3 

1910 

331 

4 

1.2 

345 

5 

1.5 

296 

3 

1.1 

1909 

325 

2 

.7 

329 

3 

1.0 

279 

7 

2.7 

1908 

306 

2 

.7 

303 

2 

.7 

263 

2 

.3 

1907 

290 

1 

.4 

284 

4 

1.5 

242 

2 

.9 

1906 

272 

2 

.8 

266 

- 

- 

232 

2 

.9 

1905 

249 

1 

.4 

233 

1 

.5 

217 



1904 

238 

4 

1.8 

215 

2 

1.0 

193 

2 

1.1 • 

1903 

225 

- 

- 

209 

5 

2.6 

175 

1 

.6 

1902 

212 

- 

- 

191 

2 

1.1 

163 

• 

mm 

1901 

191 

- 

- 

180 

1 

.6 

156 

3 

1.3 

1900 

178 

1 

.6 

169 

3 

2.0 

134 



1899 

169 

1 

.6 

150 

- 

- 

126 

3 

2.5 

1898 

156 

2 

1.4 

142 

1 

.3 

118 

1 

1.0 

1397 

141 

1 

.8 

133 

2 

1.6 

103 

1 

1.1 

1896 

131 

— 

- 

127 

- 

- 

89 

1 

1.4 

1395 

109 

1 

1.1 

114 



71 



1894 

93 

- 

- 

98 

1 

1.1 

66 

1 

1.7 

1893 

77 

- 

- 

87 

- 

- 

59 

2 

4.2 

1892 

70 

- 

- 

73 

- 

- 

47 

1 

2.9 

1891 

59 

- 

- 

68 

1 

- 

36 

— 










- 115 - 


are now laborers, is 25 percent. On the basis of these percentages we 
must make an exception of renters in the interpretation we previously 
made with regard to the success of Negroes in retaining a higher tenure 
status once they have achieved it. The proportions of Southern white 
farmers in each comparison are intermediate between those of Northern 
and Negro farmers (Table 74). 


Table 74.- Percentages of farmers now occupying a tenure status 
lower than highest ever attained, classified by highest 
tenure status ever attained 


Highest tenure status 
ever attained 

; Northern ; 

Southern white : 

Negro 

Owners 

76 

52 

16 

Renters 

19 

39 

59 

Croppers 

4 

9 

25 

Total number reporting 

67 

140 

132 


A final bit of analysis involves what may be termed an index of 
ownership hazards. Combining with all farmers who are now owners all 
the farmers who at some time in the past have been owners, we get a total 
ownership group. What proportion of this total group have descended from 
ownership at any time to some lower tenure status? The proportion is 
nearly the same in all three sample populations, being only slightly 
higher in the South (16 percent among whites, and 14 percent among 
Negroes) than in the North (13 percent). On the basis of these figures it 
would seem that the problem of assisting farm owners to retain their 
status is relatively about as important in one sample population as 
another. 

If it is clearly understood, then, that reversals of the "nor¬ 
mal" procedure may comprise significant proportions of farmers ex¬ 
periences with the tenure ladder, we may go on to a consideiation of how 
these reversals are distributed in time. A larger number of instances 
revealing descent of the ladder are reported in 1936 than in any pre¬ 
ceding year covered by our data. The high points occurring previously 
differ in the three sample populations, and the figures for these three 
groups by no means increase or decrease together (Table /5, Column Bj. 









- 116 - 


More meaningful than the absolute frequencies, however, are the 
relative frequencies with which tenure status drops are reported. 21 / 
The instances of drops down the agricultural ladder (Table 75, Col. B) 
are reduced to percentages (Table 75, Col. C) of all individuals re¬ 
ported as engaged in farming occupations during the preceding year 
(Table 75, Col. A). It is clear from these percentages that descents 
of the agricultural ladder are relatively more frequent among Southern 
farmers, both white and colored, in 1936 than in any year of the last 
three decades. In the North, however, the situation is entirely differ¬ 
ent; there the peak proportion of drops appears in 1932, while the 
proportion in 1936 is the lowest since 1929. 

Numerous factors cause both the numbers and the percentages re¬ 
presenting instances of lowered status to fluctuate considerably from year 
to year. This fact makes it difficult to see clearly whether the drops 
at any particular time are trending up or down or are stationary. One 
method of bringing out with greater clearness the trend with regard to 
frequency of descents is by means of the so-called "moving average." 22/ 


21/ In order to get this type of information, the following steps were 
taken with the data: first, beginning with the total number of informants 
in a sample population, the number engaged in non-farm occupations in any 
one year were deducted from the total for that particular year; second, 
the number of individuals who had not yet begun an independent career, 
either at farming or at some occupation other than farming, by that year 
was ascertained and subtracted from the figure remaining after the first 
step had been taken; third, the annual figure thus obtained, representing 
the total number actually engaged in farming for that year, was used as a 
base (100 percent) from which to determine the percentage of individuals 
who in the following year reported a drop in tenure status (Table 75, 
Col. A). It is the percentages that the absolute numbers of reported 
drops are of the base figures for the preceding year which appear in Col¬ 
umn C of Table 75. For example, the percentages for 1918 represent the 
proportions that farmers who occupied respectively higher tenure statuses 
in 1917 than they did in 1918 are of the total number of individuals 
(among those interviewed) who in 1917 were actually engaged in some farming 
occupation for themselves, i.e., any farming other than unpaid family 
labor. 

22/ The method consists of totaling the frequencies for a certain period 
of years, then dividing by the number of years in the period, thereby se¬ 
curing an annual average number of drops for that period. Then the fre¬ 
quency for the next later year is substituted for that of the earliest 
year of the period, and a new average is secured for the new period. For 
example, to find a three-year average we begin with the figure for 1892, 
add the figures for 1893 and 1894, and divide by three. Next we get the 
average for the three years 1893, 1894, and 1895, and so on. The curve of 
moving averages has not been extrapolated to give points for 1936. The 
implicit assumption on which such a procedure is necessarily based - that 
all relevant factors will remain constant or will change at the present 
rate - can scarcely be made today with any degree of confidence. 



117 - 


The most evident finding yielded by this type of analysis would seem to 
be that the proportions of drops vary differently for the three sample 
populations. In some periods the curves for colored and Southern white 
farmers seem to be moving together and in other periods the curves for 
all three sample populations seem similar; but extreme high and extreme 
low points of the separate curves fail to coincide in time. If you will 
study, for example, the figures appearing for the three sample popula¬ 
tions in the year 1918 you will see that the number of Negro informants 
reporting descents for the three-year period, that is, including 1917 
through 1919, is lower than any found either before or since that time. 
The curve for Northern farmers, although it has high points in the three- 
year periods centering in 1931, 1932 and 1933, has dropped off since then. 
The curve for Southern white farmers, on the other hand, with the excep¬ 
tion of the year 1934, continues rising ever since 1926. This curve, 
however, does not show the decided drop found in the Negro curve for the 
period centering in 1918. 

To summarize this material, the following observations may be made: 
the proportion of drops reported is highest among Negro farmers in 30, 
among Southern white farmers in 8, and among Northern farmers in only 
1, of the 43 years involved (1893-1935); it is lowest among Northern 
farmers in 35, among Southern white farmers in 3, and among Negro farmers 
in 2, of the 43 years. In the remaining years, identical percentages are 
found for two of the sample populations. That tenure status is held with 
relatively the greatest security, on the basis of these findings, among 
Northern farmers may not be admitted because of the fewness of share¬ 
croppers in the North. But the conclusion that tenure status is held with 
relatively the greatest insecurity by Negro farmers is almost inescapable 
(Fig. 17). 

It is important to consider the distribution of descents or drops 
in space. In the Corn Belt, we find that in three of the four local 
areas sampled the proportions of farmers who have climbed since 1932 to 
a higher status (as of 1936) are much larger than the proportions who 
have dropped down the ladder, the former ranging from three to ten times 
as large as the latter. In Mercer County, Ohio, we find that about 7 
percent report climbing as compared with less than 1 percent who re¬ 
port descending. In McLean County, Illinois, the proportion climbing is 
over one out of every ten, while less than one out of twenty report de¬ 
scending during the same period. In Jones County, Iowa, almost one in 
ten farmers report ascents, while one-third that proportion report de¬ 
scents. Only in Gentry County, Missouri, is there an exact balance 
between the proportions ascending and descending. If our sample is valid, 
and if the functioning of the agricultural ladder may be used as a criter¬ 
ion, it would seem safe to say that the past depression period has not 
affected Corn Belt farmers calamitously. 

Turning now to the South, let us consider first the two areas, 
Beckham County, Oklahoma, and Collin County, Texas, where since lew 








PERCENT 


- 118 - 



1/1 

u 


o 

z 

O 

o 

LlI 


< 

ce 

3 


3 

o 

s 

< 


o 

3 

< 

UJ 

oc 

3 

m 


co 

(- 

< 

1- 

CO 


UJ 

cr 

3 

z 

u 


o 

oo 

lO 

<NI 

00 

6 

UJ 


CO 

Ql 

O 

cc 

o • 

UJ 

o o 
z < 
- cr 

H* UJ 

cr > 
o < 
0. 

UJ C3 

cr z 


CO > 
cr o 
uj 2 
5 

cr cr 
< < 
Ul uj 
> 
U- I 
O UJ 
UJ 

co cr 

UJ I 

O R- 
< 







































































119 - 


Negroes were included in the farm population, no schedules were taken 
from colored farmers. In both areas, the proportion of climbs is prac¬ 
tically the same as the proportion of drops. The amount of fluctu¬ 
ation is much greater in the Dust Bowl county (Beckham County, Oklahoma) 
than in the Black Waxy Prairie area (Collin County, Texas); but the situ¬ 
ation does not seem alarming for the proportions that are improving their 
status in either area are no less than those going from a higher to a 
lower status. 

Among the counties in which both white and Negro farmers were 
interviewed, Red River Parish, Louisiana, reveals the largest ratio of 
descents to ascents. Among both whites and Negroes there are more than 
three farmers whose tenure status is reported as lower in 1936 than in 
1932 to every one whose status is higher in 1936 than in 1932. In the 
most nearly comparable area, Jefferson County, Arkansas, Negroes are de¬ 
scending the ladder more frequently than ascending it, but in the white 
sample, farmers are climbing more frequently than dropping. 

Going to the areas in which the proportion of ascents most exceeds 
the proportion of descents - we find that Union County, North Carolina, 
seems to offer the best situation for white farmers, while Nacogdoches 
County, Texas, is most favorable for Negro farmers. Both these areas 
represent far poorer land, and in general, apparently much less favorable 
conditions for farming than either Red River Parish or Jefferson County, 
In the face of such evidence and much more that is similar, it cannot be 
asserted dogmatically that the imperfect functioning of the agricultural 
ladder as well as most of the farmer's other socio-economic ills are ex¬ 
clusively attributable to poor land. Nor is the relationship between good 
land and high tenancy rates to be brushed aside as a paradoxical excep¬ 
tion to the rule that saving the soil will save the people. To apply this 
rule with uncritical invariability is like a young doctor who, having pre¬ 
scribed successfully for his first patient, is unwilling to vary his pre¬ 
scription for any patient thereafter. 

The other counties in which ascents exceed descents for white farm¬ 
ers are: Greenville County, South Carolina, Crockett County, Tennessee, 
and Nacogdoches County, Texas. The tenure histories of Negro farmers in 
Hale County, Alabama, Union County, North Carolina, Crockett County, 
Tennessee, in addition to the aforementioned Nacogdoches County, Texas, 
show similar excesses of climbs over descents. To summarize the Southern 
situation: in three areas among both white and colored farmers, ascents 
exceed descents (Union, North Carolina, Crockett, Tennessee, Nacogdoches, 
Texas); in one area drops exceed climbs among farmers of both races (Red 
River, Louisiana); in two areas ascents preponderate among white and 
descents among Negro farmers (Greenville, South Carolina, and Jefferson, 
Arkansas); and in the remaining bi-racial areas (Wilson, North Carolina, 
and Hale, Alabama) ascents exceed drops among Negro farmers, but the re¬ 
verse is true among white farmers. Thus there are four instances of 
similarity between the races and four of dissimilarity with respect to 


- 120 - 


the recent functioning of the agricultural ladder. Unlimited generali¬ 
zation on this subject based on data taken in a single section of the 
South is scarcely justifiable (Table 76). 


Table 76.- Percentages of farmers engaged in farming from 1932 through 
1936 who ascended or descended the agricultural ladder 
during that period, classified by local areas 




White 



Negro 


State and county : 


: As- : 

De- : 


: As- : 

De- 


Total 

:cending:scending: 

Total 

:cending: 

scending 

Northern: 







Iowa (Jones) 

165 

9.1 

3.0 




Illinois (McLean) 

147 

11.6 

4.1 




Missouri (Gentry) 

161 

4.3 

4.3 




Ohio (Mercer) 

165 

6.7 

• 6 




Southern: 







Alabama (Hale) 

29 

3.4 

6.9 

175 

5.7 

1.1 

Arkansas (Jefferson) 
Louisiana (Red River 

31 

12.9 

9.7 

168 

8.3 

13.1 

Parish) 

North Carolina 

57 

3.5 

14.0 

132 

3.0 

12.1 

(Union) 

North Carolina 

137 

10.2 

2.9 

52 

7.7 

5.8 

(Wilson) 

71 

5.6 

7.0 

44 

6.8 

2.3 

Oklahoma (Beckham) 
South Carolina 

86 

11.6 

11.6 

1/ 

1/ 

1/ 

(Greenville) 

59 

3.4 

1.7 

67 

6.0 

7.5 

Tennessee (Crockett) 

112 

8.9 

3.6 

40 

15.0 

10.0 

Texas (Collin) 

88 

6.8 

5.7 

1/ 

1/ 

1/ 

Texas (Nacogdoches) 

102 

5.9 

3.9 

65 

13.8 

— 


1/ No Negroes interviewed. 


Turning to the factors that may influence tenure histories, the 
first question raised is: What is the relationship between the amount 
of education the farmer receives and his success in climbing the ladder? 
It appears at first glance that the more education a farmer receives, the 
less likely he is to climb to a tenure status higher than that in which 
he began. The group called the "lower education" group includes those 
farmers who received not more than 4 years of schooling, while those 
who were classified as the "higher education" group had received more 
than an eighth grade education. Only the extremes with respect to 
amount of education received have been considered in order to get a 
sharper focus on the influence of education. Furthermore, since edu¬ 
cational standards have been rising during recent decades, it was de¬ 
sirable to minimize confusion from this influence. Attention has been 











- 121 - 


amount OF NUMBER 
EDUCATION 


PERCENT 

40 60 


( NORTHERN) 

MORE- 


109 


LESS- 

( SOUTHERN WHITE ) 

MORE- 112 

LESS- 58 


( NEGRO ) 


MORE 


LESS 



100 


233 


TENURE STATUS 

Same 


Txl Lower 


Higher 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 32757 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 18.- Percentages of farmers, classified by amount of education 

RECEIVED, WHO REPORT CLIMBING TO A HIGHER, REMAINING IN THE SAME, 

OR DROPPING TO A LOWER TENURE STATUS THAN THAT IN WHICH 

THEY BEGAN FARMING. 



NUMBER 

0 


NORTHERN 

INHERITING-264 

NO INHERITANCE 405 

SOUTHERN WHITE 

INHERITING- 189 

NO INHERITANCE 658 

NEGRO 

INHERITING- 97 

NO INHERITANCE 733 


PERCENT 

40 60 



100 


Climbing Remaining the same 


Dropping 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 


NEG. 32758 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 


Figure 19.- Percentages of farmers, classified by receipt of inheritance, 

WHO REPORT CLIMBING TO A HIGHER, REMAINING IN THE SAME, OR DROPPING 
TO A LOWER TENUPE STATUS THAN THAT IN WHICH THEY BEGAN FARMING. 











































































































- 122 - 


confined, therefore, to those farmers who at present are from 30 to 50 
years old. Wide variety with respect to educational opportunities re¬ 
mains, but slightly greater homogeneity is thus attained. 

The most serious difficulty met in this type of comparison is that 
so few Northern farmers are classified in the lower education category, 
while so few Negro farmers are classified in the higher education catego¬ 
ry. Nevertheless, it is important that the relationship between amount of 
education received and success in climbing the agricultural ladder is 
apparently the reverse among Negroes of what it is among white farmers 
(Fig. 18). 

All farmers do not start from the same rung of the agricultural 
ladder; but regardless of where they start, some farmers are given a sub¬ 
stantial lift through inheritance. Practically two-thirds of all Northern 
farmers who inherited property or cash advanced to a higher status than 
that in which they began farming. The same is true of Negro farmers who 
inherited property, but the relative advantage of the inheriting Northern 
farmer is seen to be much less in view of the fact that over half of non¬ 
inheriting Northern farmers also climbed while this is true of only a 
third of non-inheriting Negro farmers. Among Southern white farmers, even 
among those reporting inheritances, less than half advanced to a higher 
status than that in which they began farming. Consistently, however, the 
farmers who failed to inherit were unable to advance as often, proportion¬ 
ally, as those who inherited. Furthermore, the proportions of Southern 
farmers who at present are lower in the agricultural scale than when they 
began farming are much greater among those who failed to inherit than 
among those who inherited. Finally, since Northern non-inheritors de¬ 
scend the agricultural ladder no more frequently than do inheritors in 
that group, it would seem that the disadvantage of not inheriting is less 
in the North than it is in the South (Fig. 19). 

It may be useful to point out somewhat more fully the frequency and 
size of heritages received by farmers who now occupy various tenure sta¬ 
tuses in the three sample populations. Owners report having received 
inheritances much more often than members of any other tenure class. Com¬ 
paratively, the proportions of the other tenure classes reporting in¬ 
heritances are quite close together in each sample population. But 
Northern non-owners report more cases of inheritance than do Southern 
non-owners, and white non-owners in the South report more such cases than 
do Negroes. In each sample population among the non-owning tenure classes 
renters report more who have inherited than do the other tenure classes. 
Negro laborers report the smallest proportion (1 percent) of cases of 
inheritance, whereas Northern owners report the largest proportion (57 
percent) of such cases. To him that hath is given.... We must recognize 
that present owners are older on the average than farmers in the lower 
tenure classes, and have had opportunity to survive relatives. Dif¬ 
ferences between the tenure classes with respect to the proportions re¬ 
porting inheritance would probably be less striking if owners, renters, 
croppers, and laborers of approximately the same age were compared 
(Fig. 20). 


PERCENT 


w 


-123- 



— oo 


in co 
^ oo 


o 00 
• in 

00 eg 


00 00 
co CVJ 
^ *” 


^ 00 
in id 


o 00 
• m 
in Z- 


oo in 



r^. oo 

CD 

00 00 


03 

• o> 
in to 


O oo 

2 X 


in 
r< m 


in oo 


h- 


O 

cc 

o 

LU 



o 

CO 


(X 

LU 



O 

ID 


O 



OC. 

UJ 

Q_ 



£ 

CD 

O 

-Q 

(TJ 


pvv i 

' V\ 

^ W 

\ \ \ 
K \ -J 





c; 

03 

ft; 



03 

c; 

£ 

O 



V) 

u 


o 

u 

UJ 


< 

a. 

=> 


u 

QC 

19 

< 


o 


< 

UJ 

cc 


CD 


<0 

Ui 

o 

z 

< 

h- 

CE 

ui 

X 

z 


o 

CO 

UJ 

eg 

«n 

19 

UJ 


UJ 

tr 


D 

O 


o: 

19 

< 

u. 

O 


UJ 


O 

UI 

> 


UI 

o 

UI 

x 


uj • 
> > 

< I- 
x tr 

ui 
o o. 
x o 

* X 

CL 

1/3 

x x 
uj o 
2 

X x 

< 10 
u. < 

o 

u 

O h. 
o 

10 

UJ 

C3 

< 

K 

Z 

UJ 

o 

X 

UJ 

CL 


I 

o 

CVJ 


UJ 

X 

3 

O 


Q£ 

< 

Q. 

UJ 

O 


CO 

d 


O 


o 

CO 


o 

CVJ 
















































- 124 


Taking up the value of heritages received, we find that owners in 
each of the three sample populations report far more heritages of the 
larger valuations than do the non-owning tenure classes. In the smaller 
value-of-inheritance categories higher percentages of Northern non-owners 
report having received such heritages than do owners, but in the South, 
among both whites and Negroes, owners report larger proportions inherit¬ 
ing, regardless of value of the inheritance. About one-half of all 
Northern owners report that the value of their inheritance was over 
$1,000. The same is true for one-fourth of Southern white owners and 
for one-fifth of Negro owners. Another fifth of Negro owners report re¬ 
ceiving inheritances that are valued at less than $500, while the pro¬ 
portions of owners among white farmers receiving heritages of this size 
is much smaller. In brief. Northern owners not only receive assistance 
in climbing the agricultural ladder by inheriting cash or property more 
frequently than do members in other tenure classes, regardless of sample 
population, but at the same time the value of those heritages is greater. 
Non-owning tenure classes not only inherit less frequently, but the value 
of their heritages tends to be smaller. The importance of these findings 
is evident (Table 77). 


Table 77.- Percentages of farmers reporting inheritances of 

specified values 


Sample population: 
and amounts : 

Owners : 

Renters 

: Croppers 

: Laborers 

Northern: 

Under $500 

3.1 

6.5 

— 

4.3 

$500 - $1,000 

3.1 

4.6 

— 

4.3 

$1,000 and over 

51.3 

8.0 

- 

7.2 

Southern white: 

Under $500 

6.9 

4.7 

2.4 

1.9 

$500 - $1,000 

4.0 

1.8 

.6 

1.9 

$1,000 and over 

25.9 

4.3 

3.0 

1.9 

Negro: 

Under $500 

19.5 

2.0 

2.6 

1.1 

$500 - $1,000 

8.6 

4.0 

.8 


$1,000 and over 

18.7 

2.0 

1.1 

— 

Another factor 

bearing on 

success 

in climbing the 

ladder is the 

engaging of a farmer 

in some type 

of non- 

farm occupations 

for a shorter 


or longer period - what is here termed "non-farm experience." The pro¬ 
portions of farmers in the South who have successfully tackled the 
ladder are considerably larger among those reporting non—farm experience 
than among those not reporting such experience. The relative advantage 










- 125 - 


oi this non-farm work seems to be approximately the same for Negroes and 
for white farmers. The proportions of farmers who report they now occupy 
a status lower than their first is about the same, however, in both oc¬ 
cupational-experience categories. But in the North, on the contrary, 
relatively more of those farmers who report farming experience only have 
successfully climbed the ladder than of those who at some time have left 
the farm to engage in other occupations. The relative discrepancy be— 
tween the non—farm experience and the exclusively farm—experience groups 
is less in the North than in the South. Among Northern farmers, as 
among those in the South, the proportions who report occupying a lower 
status now than when they began farming is practically the same regard¬ 
less of type of occupational experience (Table 78). 


Table 78.- Percentages of farmers classified by type of 
occupational experience whose present status is 
higher, same as, or lower than, first tenure 

status 


Present status 

: Northern : 

Southern white 

: Negro 

: Farm 
: only 

: Non- : 

: farm ; 

Farm : 
only : 

Non- : 
farm : 

Farm : 
only : 

Non¬ 

farm 

Higher than first status 

61.2 

56.8 

33.5 

45.7 

33.1 

48.5 

Same as first status 

37.0 

41.7 

58.2 

45.7 

59.1 

42.9 

Lower than first status 

1.8 

1.5 

8.3 

8.6 

7.8 

8.6 

Total number of cases 

489 

198 

603 

291 

611 

231 

Considering the various 

tenure classes 

separately with 

respect 


to the significance of the factors of non-farm experience we find sev¬ 
eral significant relationships. In the North the highest proportion of 
farmers in any tenure class who report climbing higher than their orig¬ 
inal tenure status in farming is to be found among part-owners and 
owners who have engaged in non-farm occupations. Practically 90 percent 
of such individuals report climbing. On the other hand, among landlords 
the proportion who report climbing is somewhat higher in the case of 
those who have had exclusively farm experience than in the case of those 
who report non-farm experience as well. In the lower tenure classes 
either there is no marked difference between the two occupational groups 
with respect to the proportions climbing, remaining stationary, and 
descending, or the number of cases involved is so small that sound 
generalization is impossible. 

Among Southern white farmers no striking differences appear in 
the cases of landlords, full owners, or part-owners. But among 69 













126 - 


Table 79.- Percentages of farmers whose present tenure status is higher than, same as, or lower than first tenure status, 

classified by type of occupational experience 

! Total : 

Sample population, tenure class : number : Present tenure status 

and occupational experience _ i of cases i _~ Higher i _ Sane ~ ; Lower_ 

Northern: 

Landlords - 


Farm 

82 

68 

32 

- 

lion-farm 

28 

54 

4o 

- 

Full owners - 

Farm 

112 

83 

17 

- 

Non-farm 

37 

09 

11 

- 

Part-owners - 

Farm 

73 

78 

22 

- 

Non-farm 

23 

91 

9 

- 

Related renters - 

Farm 

43 

51 

47 

2 

lion-farm 

24 

46 

50 

4 

Unrelated renters - 

Farm 

121 

86 

42 

2 

lion-farm 

59 

49 

50 

- 

Related croppers - 

Farm 

7 1/ 

- 

- 

- 

Non-farm 

3 1/ 

- 

- 

- 

Unrelated croppers - 

Farm 

u y 

- 

- 

- 

Hon-farm 

2 V 


- 

- 

Related laborers - 

Farm 

8 1/ 

- 

. 

- 

lion-farm 

Unrelated laborers - 

1 V 



- 

Farm 

39 

- 

92 

3 

lion-farm 

21 

“ 

95 

5 

Southern white: 

Landlords - 

Farm 

119 

45 

55 

- 

Non-farm 

76 

42 

50 

- 

Full owners - 

Farm 

107 

56 

44 

- 

lion-fam 

55 

6 e 

38 

- 

Pnrt-o.vners - 

Farm 

23 

83 

17 

- 

iron-farm 

10 

67 

33 

- 

Related renters - 

Farm 

44 

23 

73 

k 

Hon-farm 

18 

39 

61 

_ 

Unrelated renters - 

Farm 

144 

35 

57 

8 

lion-farm 

69 

51 

41 

9 

Related croppers - 

Farm 

3° 

- 

83 

17 

Non-fam 

7 1/ 

- 



Unrelated croppers - 

Farm 

io4 

? 

70 

21 

Non-farm 

27 

44 

26 

30 

Related laborers - 

Farm 

5 V, 

. 

• 


Hon-farm 

3 1/ 

- 


• — 

Unrelated laborers - 

Farm 

29 

- 

76 

24 

Hon-farm 

18 

- 

56 

44 

Negro: 

Landlords - 

Farm 

21 

81 

19 


Hon-farm 

11 

73 

27 


Full owners - 

Farm 

51 

82 

18 


Kon-farm 

26 

88 

12 


Part-owners - 

Farm 

12 

75 

25 


Hon-farm 

7 1/ 



m 

Related renters - 

Farm 

12 

25 

75 

m 

Non-farm 

Unrelated renters 

6 V 



- 

Farm 

168 

54 

45 

1 

Kon-farm 

67 

69 

31 


Related croppers - 

Farm 

16 

19 

81 

_ 

Hon-farm 

2 1/ 




Unrelated croppers - 

Farm 

264 

14 

80 

5 

Hon-farm 

90 

31 

64 

2 

Related laborers - 

Farm 

2 y 

- 



Non-farm 


• 



Unrelated laborers - 

Farm 

65 

• 

51 

49 

Hon-farm 

22 

- 

27 

73 


v~ Numbers of cases too small to compute" "percentage's •" 
















- 127 


unrelated renters one-half of those who report non-farm experience are 
also able to report climbing whereas among 144 in the same tenure class 
who have engaged exclusively in farming report such advances in only 
35 percent of all cases. It would seem that the relative advantage 
of non—farm occupations is especially great in the case of renters. 
An even greater percentage discrepancy in favor of the non-farm experi¬ 
ence group is found among unrelated croppers, the proportions reporting 
climbing being 45 percent when non-farm experience is reported, and 
less than 10 percent when farm experience only is reported. On the 
other hand, there are fewer in the non—farm occupations category who re¬ 
tain the same status as that in which they began, and more who have 
dropped lower than their first status, than among those who report farm 
experience only. 

In the case of Negro farm owners, as among Southern whites, no 
pronounced differences appear between the two occupational-experience 
groups with respect to success in climbing the agricultural ladder. 
But again, as in the case of white farmers, unrelated renters and un¬ 
related croppers among Negroes who report non-farm experience also re¬ 
port successful climbing of the agricultural ladder more often than do 
the members of those tenure classes who engaged in no such non-farm oc¬ 
cupations , 


It would seem that non-farm occupations contribute to success in 
climbing the agricultural ladder most significantly in the case of 
Southern unrelated renters and croppers. Related renters and croppers, 
apparently, are just as likely, if not more likely, to be successful 
without working off the farm for a while. Farm owners, likewise, seem 
to have gained no material aid in achieving that final highest rung in the 
agricultural ladder by leaving the farm to engage in non-farm occupations 
(Table 79). 



Other Elements in Farmers' Lifetime Patterns 


After discussing at length the role of the agricultural ladder 
in the farmer's life, we now turn to some of the other important ele¬ 
ments in his lifetime pattern of behavior. As in Chapter II, we shall 
consider the age at which members of the various tenure classes leave 
their parental homes, the age at which they marry, the tenure-class 
origin of farmers' mates, certain tenure-class differences with respect 
to farmers' families and households, and finally, education as it re¬ 
lates to tenure class. Our concern is primarily with the family as 
the group in which the farm child appears and grows to youth and man¬ 
hood, and which he deserts in order to found a new family unit. Certain 
critical phases or points in this cycle through which the family passes 
may be taken as indicators of differences between the various tenure 
classes. We turn to the first of these significant indicators. 











- 128 - 


Table 80.- Average age at time of departure from home, by sex and generation 


Tenure class 1/ 

Men 

Women 

Sons 

Daughters 

• 

• 

TotalJAverage age 

• 

• 

[Total:Average age 

• 

• 

Total:Average age! 

• 

• 

•Total:Average age 


Northerni 


Landlords 
Full owners 
Part owners 
Related renters 
Unrelated rent¬ 
ers 

Related oroppers 
Unrelated crop¬ 
pers 

Related laborers 
Unrelated labor¬ 
ers 


Southern white* 

Landlords 
Full owners 
Part owners 
Related renters 
Unrelated rent¬ 
ers 

Related croppers 
Unrelated crop¬ 
pers 

Related laborers 
Unrelated labor¬ 
ers 


Negro* 

Landlords 
Full owners 
Part owners 
Related renters 
Unrelated rent¬ 
ers 

Related croppers 
Unrelated crop¬ 
pers 

Related laborers 
Unrelated labor¬ 
ers 


76 

23.2 

82 

21.1 

121 

22.1 

129 

20.9 

78 

22.1 

87 

21.3 

55 

22.0 

60 

19.9 

168 

21.6 

163 

20.0 

6 

19.2 

8 

21.9 

7 

17.3 

5 

17.6 

7 

20.1 

7 

19.7 

58 

20.9 

46 

21.2 


126 

23.7 

133 

20.8 

112 

22.0 

122 

20.2 

34 

21.5 

38 

20.7 

51 

21.3 

50 

19.3 

185 

21.8 

184 

19.5 

18 

21.8 

19 

18.5 

91 

21.0 

92 

18.8 

5 

21.4 

4 

24.5 

38 

18.0 

41 

19.1 


21 

20.7 

19 

19.6 

51 

21.1 

50 

20.1 

16 

22.0 

16 

20.4 

15 

20.4 

16 

18.7 

190 

20.5 

162 

19.7 

15 

21.3 

16 

18.9 

261 

20.4 

227 

18.9 

1 

18.0 

1 

15.0 

64 

20.0 

45 

19.5 


67 

21.9 

64 

21.0 

65 

21.9 

83 

20.5 

39 

22.0 

48 

20.8 

12 

20.2 

12 

19.6 

48 

21.2 

mm 

90 

19.9 



2 

22.5 

2 

24.5 

2 

20.5 

16 

20.7 

20 

19.0 


145 

21.2 

137 

19.9 

107 

20.7 

112 

19.2 

17 

20.7 

18 

19.6 

9 

23.7 

12 

19.0 

90 

20.7 

123 

19.3 

3 

19.0 

4 

16.5 

30 

20.6 

59 

13.0 

1 

19.0 

3 

17.7 

11 

19.3 

11 

18.7 


30 

19.4 

32 

18.4 

50 

20.6 

44 

19.5 

3 

21.0 

3 

21.3 

— 

— 

3 

16.0 

79 

20.8 

95 

18.9 

— 

- 

1 

17.0 

96 

19.5 

111 

17.8 


• 

• 

' 

11 

20.9 

20 

17.5 



Present tenure class of adults and present tenure class 


of offsprings parents. 
















- 129 - 


What differences do we find between the average ages at which 
farmers belonging to the various tenure classes left their parental 
homes? In the North we find that present landlords report having left 
their homes at the latest age. On the average they were 23 years old 
at this juncture in their lives. Full owners, part-owners, and related 
renters all report the same average age at departure from home, which is 
just one year younger than that reported by landlords. Unrelated rent¬ 
ers were about one-half year younger when they left home than related 
renters. It should be kept in mind that, as we go down the tenure scale, 
present age of our informants tends to be lower. A consideration of the 
average ages at which members of the various tenure classes left home 
consequently involves not only tenure-class differences, but differences 
due to long-time influences that may possibly be affecting all tenure 
classes similarly in the course of time. Northern croppers and laborers 
are not only younger at present than members of the upper tenure classes, 
but they also report having left home at earlier ages than the members 
of other tenure classes. Present croppers, of whom there are few in the 
North, report the youngest average age at departure from home; those now 
renting from relatives left at an average age of somewhat over 19 years, 
and those renting from unrelated landlords at an average age of somewhat 
over 17 years. These average ages are lower even than those reported 
by laborers and represent a wide difference from those of landlords 
(Table 80). 

Among Southern white farmers we find again that present landlords 
left their homes on the average considerably later in life than did 
members of any other tenure class. In fact, the average age is even 
higher in this case than in the North. Full owners, after landlords, 
have the highest average age at departure from home. Then come, in 
order of descending average age at time of departure, unrelated renters 
and related croppers, part-owners, related laborers, unrelated croppers, 
and related renters. Unrelated laborers represent a sharply divergent 
group who left home on the average almost 3 years earlier than did the 
members of any other tenure class. The average age at departure in this 
case is 18, representing a difference of nearly 6 years on the average 
between the time at which present unrelated laborers and present land¬ 
lords left their parental homes (Table 80). 

Among Negro farmers present part-owners report having left home 
at the latest average age, 22 years. The next oldest group are related 
croppers. Then come full owners and landlords, the average age descend¬ 
ing from slightly above to somewhat below 21 years at time of departure- 
Unrelated renters, related renters, and unrelated croppers report practi¬ 
cally the same average age (about 20| years) at time of leaving home, 
while for unrelated farm laborers the age is only slightly less (20 years). 
In general we may say that the tendency is for white farmers to leave 
their homes later than Negroes, Northern farmers being slightly older on 
the average at this juncture even than Southern whites. Within the 
white-sample populations members of the lower tenure classes leave home 
at earlier ages than do those in the upper tenure classes (Table 80). 


- 130 - 


Had the tenure comparison been made in terms of the families from 
which our informants came rather than present tenure class, it would 
probably have been more significant. Information on informants' children 
to some extent satisfied this need. Whenever an informant reported that 
he had children who had grown up and left home, the age at which each 
son or daughter left was secured. It is therefore possible to compare 
the ages at which all landlord informants and landlords' sons, all owner 
informants and owners' sons, and so on, left their parental homes. 
Since lower tenure-class families often have not had time for offspring 
to grow up enough to leave home and marry, there are certain gaps in the 
information. But it is possible to indicate tenure differences in age 
at which informants' sons leave home, and differences between generations 
and between sexes, 25/ 

Northern landlords', full owners', part-owners', related renters', 
unrelated renters', and unrelated laborers' sons all report departure 
at an earlier age on the average than the generation of which their 
fathers are members. These generation differences are slight in most 
tenure classes, but considerable in the cases of landlords and related 
renters. In the former instance the difference between the older and the 
younger groups is over 1 year, dropping from over 23 years of age among 
informants to less than 22 years among sons. Among related renters the 
difference is even greater, the drop being from 22 years for informants 
to somewhat over 20 years for sons. The only instance in which sons re¬ 
port leaving home at an average age older than that specified by inform¬ 
ants occurs among related laborers, of whom there are but very few 
(Table 80). 

Among Southern white farmers the most pronounced age difference 
between generations based on adequate numbers is found in the case of 
landlords and landlords' sons. Present landlords report leaving home at 
an average age of over 23-^- years, while among landlords' sons the aver¬ 
age is somewhat over 21 years. Less marked differences are discovered 
among full owners, part-owners, unrelated renters, and unrelated croppers. 
Wider generation differences, although based on comparatively few cases, 
exist among related croppers and related laborers. Two tenure categories, 
raising a question of interpretation despite the fact that neither in¬ 
volve large numbers, show the reverse tendency: related renters' and un¬ 
related laborers' sons report leaving home at a later age, on the average, 
than that indicated by the farmers in those tenure classes (Table 80). 

Among Negroes we find again that landlords', part-owners, owners', 
and unrelated croppers' sons leave at earlier average ages than did 

23/ It should be pointed out that the average figures for the older 
generation are based upon the ages of all male informants in a partic¬ 
ular tenure class whether they reported sons who had left home or not. 

A similar course was followed with respect to data involving women in¬ 
formants or informants' wives and their daughters. 








- 131 - 


informants in the respective tenure classes. The generation differences, 
however, are not so great as between white farmers and their sons. Two 
contradictory instances are found: unrelated renters' sons report leav¬ 
ing home at a slightly higher average age than did unrelated renters 
themselves; the same is true of unrelated laborers' sons. In the former 
instance, at least, the number of cases involved seems to be large enough 
to be significant, but the size of the difference is small (Table 80). 

In summary we may say that the average age of departure from home 
reported by the sons of farmers in the various tenure classes, with few 
exceptions, is lower than that reported by the older generation. These 
exceptions are found only in non-owning tenure classes and, in general, 
are based on fewer cases than those which form the basis for the generali¬ 
zation. Among white farmers' sons, as among their fathers, those repre¬ 
senting the lower tenure classes with few exceptions report leaving home 
at younger average ages than those representing the higher tenure classes. 
Among Negro farmers' sons, however, the lowest average age at departure 
from home is found among the sons of landlords, followed closely by the 
sons of unrelated croppers, while the sons of full and part-owners, of 
unrelated renters, and of unrelated laborers report leaving home at 
practically the same average age. These findings give further support 
to the thesis that not only are tenure class differences significant, 
but that these differences vary substantially between the three sample 
populations. 

To complete the picture the same type of data as those given in 
the preceding paragraphs are presented with respect to female informants 
or male informants' wives and their daughters. With only negligible 
exceptions there is a similar trend toward younger age at departure on 
the part of daughters as compared with mothers. The generation differ¬ 
ences are in the same direction but more consistent among women than 
among men. Furthermore, practically the same tendencies appear among 
women as among men with respect to relationship between tenure class 
and age at departure. That is, upper tenure-class wives among white 
farmers generally report leaving home at a later average age than those 
in the lower tenure classes, the same thing being true of their daughters. 
Among Negroes, apart from landlords' wives and landlords' daughters who 
report leaving home at an earlier age than is the case with full owners 
and part-owners, the same generation differences appear as were found 
among whites (Table 80). 

That our farmers' wives and their daughters tend to leave their 
parental homes at an earlier age than do the farmers or their sons is 
true practically without exception in any tenure class or sample popu¬ 
lation, exceptions being found only when the number of cases involved 

is very small. 

The second critical point to be considered is that of age at 
time of first marriage. Marriage takes place at ages that differ be- 


-132- 


Table 81.- Average age at time of first marriage, by sex and generation 




Men 

Women 


Sons 


Daughters 

Tenure class 1/ 

• • 

• • 

: Total: 

Average age 

• 

• 

Total:Average age 

• 

• 

Total:Average age 

• 

• 

Total:Average age 

Northern: 

Landlords 

85 

25.7 

83 

22.3 

24 

24.0 

32 

22.0 

Full owners 

137 

25.5 

132 

21.8 

102 

23.5 

119 

21.5 

Part owners 

90 

25.6 

89 

22.4 

26 

22.5 

30 

21.6 

Related renters 

62 

24.7 

61 

21.6 

13 

22.6 

16 

19.6 

Unrelated rent¬ 
ers 

167 

24.5 

164 

21.3 

46 

23.0 

54 

19.9 

Related croppers 

9 

24.7 

8 

21.9 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Unrelated crop¬ 
pers 

7 

22.1 

5 

20.4 

— 

- 

2 

22.5 

Related laborers 

8 

23.1 

8 

21.2 

1 

29.0 

2 

20.0 

Unrelated labor¬ 
ers 

52 

24.9 - 

48 

20.9 

4 

20.3 

17 

18.4 

Southern white; 

Landlords 

157 

26.0 

162 

21.4 

80 

22.6 

82 

21.0 

Full owners 

140 

24.6 

149 

21.0 

143 

22.5 

129 

19.3 

Part owners 

37 

25.1 

41 

21.1 

9 

22.6 

7 

20.7 

Related renters 

60 

23.3 

57 

19.5 

6 

22.7 

18 

18.5 

Unrelated rent¬ 
ers 

204 

23.2 

200 

19.6 

91 

21.1 

119 

18.9 

Related croppers 

34 

22.8 

32 

18.9 

2 

21.0 

4 

17.5 

Unrelated crop¬ 
pers 

126 

22.3 

123 

19.1 

30 

21.5 

52 

18.6 

Related laborers 

4 

22.2 

5 

20.0 

- 

— 

4 

17.0 

Unrelated labor¬ 
ers 

46 

23.2 

47 

20.1 

2 

20.0 

18 

18.9 

Negro: 

Landlords 

22 

22.1 

23 

19.9 

12 

19.8 

11 

19.2 

Full owners 

66 

23.4 

66 

20.2 

56 

21.6 

58 

18.6 

Part owners 

18 

23.7 

18 

20.3 

1 

18.0 

- 

- 

Related renters 

17 

22.4 

18 

19.4 

1 

23.0 

5 

16.2 

Unrelated rent¬ 
ers 

216 

21.8 

197 

20.1 

89 

20.6 

121 

18.7 

Related croppers 

16 

22.1 

17 

18.9 

3 

19.7 • 

7 

19.1 

Unrelated crop¬ 
pers 

321 

21.9 

295 

19.6 

82 

20.9 

89 

18.2 

Related laborers 

2 

19.5 

1 

15.0 

1 

21.0 

1 

18.0 

Unrelated labor¬ 
ers 

74 

22.2 

63 

19.3 

7 

23.1 

10 

17.7 


offspring’s marriage* 













- 133 - 


tween the tenure classes in respects generally similar to those found 
in the case of age at departure from home, Among white farmers, both 
Northern and Southern, landlords report average age at marriage as being 
more advanced than do farmers in any other tenure class. The figure is 
but slightly lower in the case of Northern full owners and part-owners, 
while among Southern whites the difference is greater. Still younger 
in the North are renters, unrelated laborers, and related croppers, the 
youngest being unrelated croppers. The spread in average age at marriage 
is from about 22 years in the last-mentioned tenure class to nearly 26. 
in the case of landlords (Table 81). 

The difference in average ages at time of marriage between non-own¬ 
ing and owning tenure classes among white farmers in the South is great¬ 
er than that in the North, being almost 1-g- years on the average when we 
consider the youngest class of owners and the oldest class of non-owners, 
whereas in the North it is only slightly over one-half year. Related 
laborers and unrelated croppers among Southern whites report the youngest 
average age at time of marriage - somewhat above 22 years as contrasted 
with 26 for Southern white landlords (Table 81). 

Among Negro farmers the average age at marriage among landlords 
is earlier than among full and part-owners, as was also true regarding 
their average age at time of leaving home; the latter two tenure classes 
report the highest average age at time of marriage among all Negro farmers. 
No great difference is found between the average age of renters, croppers, 
and unrelated laborers, for all of whom the figure is practically the 
same as that for landlords. Related laborers report by far the youngest 
average age at time of marriage, 19| years, which is about 2j years 
younger than in the case of other non-owning tenure classes and landlords, 
and about 4 years younger than full owners and part-owners (Table 81). 
To summarize, the tendency is for members of the lower tenure classes in 
each sample population to marry at earlier ages than those of the upper 
tenure classes, the most notable exception being found in the case of 
colored landlords. 

It is of interest to compare members of the older and the younger 
generations with respect to age at first marriage. Sons pass this im¬ 
portant milestone on the average at a considerably earlier age than did 
farmers of the older generation. The only instances in which exceptions 
occur are those in which the frequencies involved are very small. The 
average age at marriage of Northern landlords' sons, as among landlords 
themselves, is older than that for the representatives of any other 
tenure class; the figure for sons of full owners being next highest, 
followed in order of decreasing age by those of unrelated renters, re¬ 
lated renters, and part-owners. The widest discrepancy found between 
fathers and sons is in the case of unrelated laborers, the sons in this 
, category marrying at an average of slightly above 20 years, as compared 
with a figure slightly below 25 for their fathers. The small number of 
individuals involved, however, indicates these averages to be unstable 
(Table 81) . 


- 134 - 


Among Southern whites we find in each instance that the average 
age of sons at time of marriage is considerably lower than that of their 
fathers. There is practically no difference in the figure reported by • 
sons of landlords, full owners, part-owners, and related renters at time 
of marriage, but these as a group marry about l-g- years later on the 
average than do unrelated renters' sons, and 1 year later on the average 
than unrelated croppers' sons. Tenure differences in this sample popu¬ 
lation, at least so far as the higher tenure classes are concerned, are 
smaller among sons than was true of the older generation. Nevertheless 
the tendency is still clearly for members of the lower tenure classes to 
marry earlier than those of the upper tenure classes (Table 81). 

Among Negro farmers we find landlords' sons marrying earlier than 
sons from any other tenure class, the only exceptions being found among 
part-owners and related croppers, where only a few cases are involved. 
Unrelated renters' and unrelated croppers' sons marry on the average 
somewhat younger than do those of full owners. But although the number 
of cases is too small for the average to be stable, apparently the sons 
of unrelated laborers marry at an age later not only than that in any 
other tenure class among sons, but later even than most tenure classes in 
the older generation (Table 81). 

To summarize, it may be said that the general tendency is for the 
sons of farmers in the lower tenure classes to marry at earlier ages 
than sons of farmers in the upper tenure classes. The most marked ex¬ 
ception is found in the case of sons of Negro landlords who marry earlier 
than any other generation, tenure class, or sample population category. 

Among farmers' wives and daughters, likewise, members of the 
younger generation tend to marry earlier than did those of the older 
generation. A few exceptions again appear but they involve only a few 
cases. Daughters of Northern farmers in the owning tenure classes marry 
about 2 years later on the average than do daughters of renters. Daught¬ 
ers of unrelated laborers, reporting lowest average age at time of 
marriage, marry still younger. The tenure differences in age at time of 
marriage that were present in the case of mothers seem, if anything to 
be accentuated in the case of daughters, a difference of 3£ years appear¬ 
ing between daughters of landlords (22 years) and daughters of unre¬ 
lated laborers (18f years) (Table 81). 

A similar tendency for even wider tenure differences in average 
age to appear among daughters than existed among mothers is found among 
Southern whites, but the extreme instances involve only a few cases. 
Daughters of landlords average 21 years at time of marriage; other 
owners' daughters marry earlier, and those of the lower tenure classes 
still earlier, the youngest being the daughters of related croppers and 
laborers (Table 81) . 


Among daughters of Negro farmers the highest average age at time 
of marriage appears in the case of daughters of landlords, followed 







- 135 - 


closely by daughters of related croppers, then by daughters of unrelated 
renters and full owners, the differences involved being comparatively 
slight. Younger still are the daughters of related renters. The entire 
range is about the same as that found in the case of the farmers' wives 
but, with minor exceptions, consistently lower. In general it may be 
said that our information with respect to age at marriage of farmers' 
wives and of their daughters is consistent with that previously presented, 
showing the members of the lower tenure classes to pass through this 
crucial stage in the lifetime cycle of behavior at an earlier age than do 
those of the upper tenure classes (Table 81). 

Up to this point we have been considering simply the age at which 
marriage took place on the part of the members of the several tenure 
classes. Now we take up the question of the tenure-class origin of the 
mates of our informants and of their married offspring. Information was 
obtained regarding the tenure class occupied by the father of the farmer 
and by his father-in-law, if the latter were also a farmer, at the time 
the marriage took place. Present tenure class of the informant's family 
or of his or his wife's parents' families has nothing to do with this 
analysis. The objective is this: to discover the relationship between 
the tenure class of the groom's father and that of his farmer father-in- 
law. Is it more likely to be the same, higher, or lower than that of his 
own father? Accordingly, we are concerned with the respective tenure 
classes involved at the time marriage took place. 

In the following comparisons, the tenure class of landlords is to 
be considered separately from that of owners and part-owners. It was 
thought desirable to make this exception because, with respect to mar¬ 
riage, at least in the case of Southern white landlords, this tenure 
class seemed to stand apart from the other classes of owners. 

Beginning with Northern farmers whose fathers at the time of 
their marriage were landlords we find their farmer fathers-in-law at the 
same time to have been landlords in one-third of all cases. In a larger 
proportion of the cases, however, these fathers-in-law were owners other 
than landlords, making a total of three-fourths of all landlords' sons 
who report their fathers-in-law also to have been farm landowners. 
Among Northern farmers whose fathers were owners and part-owners even a 
larger proportion report fathers-in-law who were landowners, practically 
83 percent being in this tenure class, a few more being landlords, making 
a total of 88 percent who were also landowners. Among Northern farmers 
whose fathers at the time of marriage were tenants we find practically 
the same proportions of landowners as non-owner fathers-in-law, with a 
slight preponderance of the former (Table 82). 

Among Southern white farmers nearly three-fourths of those whose 
fathers were landlords married daughters of landlords. They marry rela¬ 
tively only one-tenth as many full or part owners' daughters as daughters 
of landlords. In other words, the tendency seems to be for landlords to 


136- 


Table 82.- Percentages of married male informants, married sons, and married daughters 
whose fathers-in-law at time of marriage were farmers 
occupying specified tenure statue 

Tenure status i i s Full or < : t Farm 

of father; Totals , Landlord , ^ OTmers , Renters , Croppers , i aborer 


Northern - 


Landlord* 


Male informants 

12 

33 

42 

Sons 

13 

- 

69 

Daughters 

18 

11 

56 

Full or part owner* 

Male informants 

266 

5 

83 

Sons 

77 

4 

69 

Daughters 

94 

3 

67 

Tenant* 

Male informants 

92 

8 

46 

Sons 

37 

3 

46 

Daughters 

40 

- 

57 

Farm laborers* 

Male informants 

•4 

■B 

- 

Sons 

3 

a* 

— 

Daughters 

11 

9 

36 


Southern white - 


25 1/ 

31 
33 

10 
25 
27 

45 2 

51 

40 2 


45 


Landlord * 


Male informants 

67 

72 

7 

16 

4 

• 

Sons 

49 

18 

51 

10 

18 

2 

Daughters 

48 

17 

60 

8 

15 

- 

Full or part owner* 

Male informants 

285 

3 

66 

21 

10 


Sons 

108 

7 

52 

32 

8 


Daughters 

94 

12 

60 

17 

10 

2 

Renters * 

Male informants 

133 

9 

37 

49 

6 

mm 

Sons 

66 

11 

33 

38 

17 

1 

Daughters 

97 

12 

30 

43 

13 

1 

Croppers * 

Male informants 

77 

5 

31 

16 

48 

a. 

Sons 

25 

- 

28 

32 

40 


Daughters 

37 

3 

27 

27 

43 

m 

Farm laborers * 

Male informants 

3 

- 

_ 




Sons 

1 

- 

- 

• 


m 

Daughters 

4 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Negro - 

Landlord* 

Male informants 

1 

• 

- 

_ 

«» 

m 

Sons 

10 

- 

10 

40 

60 

m 

Daughters 

7 

- 

- 

- 

• 

m 

Full or part owner* 

Male informants 

103 

2 

31 

45 

19 

3 

Sons 

31 


39 

29 

32 


Daughters 

35 

mm 

17 

51 

31 

m 

Renters s 

Male informants 

235 

mm 

14 

59 

26 

1 

Sons 

69 

- 

9 

33 

56 

1 

Daughters 

90 

- 

17 

42 

41 

m 

Croppers * 

Male informants 

183 


9 

30 

61 


Sons 

64 

- 

9 

22 

69 


Daughters 

64 

- 

11 

31 

58 

urn 

Farm laborers * 

Male informants 

5 

- 

• 

•• 



Sons 

2 

- 

— 



mm 

Daughters 

7 

- 

- 

- 




l/ Figures for Northern croppers inoluded with those for renters 


C\2 00 tO 







- 137 - 


be sharply differentiated even from other owners. Southern white inform¬ 
ants whose fathers were owners or part-owners showed a similar preference 
for daughters of men in the same tenure classes; two-thirds married 
women whose fathers were also owners or part-owners. Only a very small 
proportion (under 3 per cent) married into the landlord class. About 
one-third married into lower tenure classes, the majority of these 
marrying renters' daughters. Practically one-half of Southern white in¬ 
formants who at the time of their marriage were renters' sons married 
daughters of renters. Somewhat over one-third of them married up into 
the full and part-owner classes, and about one-tenth married into the 
landlord class. Only one-twentieth married lower down into the class 
of croppers. Taking up informants whose fathers were croppers at the 
time of marriage we find again that practically one-half married into 
families of the same tenure class, and the other married into families 
belonging to higher tenure classes. The majority of the latter group 
married daughters of owners other than landlords. There are too few in¬ 
formants whose fathers at the time of their marriage were laborers for 
them to be included in this comparison (Table 82). 

About one-third of Negro informants whose fathers at the time of 
their marriage were owners or part-owners married into families of the 
same tenure class; somewhat less than half married daughters of renters; 
and about one-fifth married daughters of croppers. It is to be borne in 
mind that Negro landowners are comparatively fewer than landowners in 
either of the other two sample populations. Nearly 60 percent of Negro 
farmers whose fathers were renters married daughters of renters, while 26 
percent married into the lower tenure class of croppers. Finally, 60 
percent of Negro farmers whose fathers were croppers at the time of their 
marriage married into the same tenure class, 30 percent married into rent¬ 
ers' families, and 9 percent married into owners' families (Table 82). 

From this brief survey involving 10 tenure class comparisons, we 
find 7 instances in which the largest proportion of farmers' mates are 
found in families belonging to the same tenure class. The 3 exceptions 
are as follows: first, Northern sons of landlords, who marry daughters 
of landlords slightly less often than daughters of full and part-owners; 
second. Northern sons of renters, among whom the proportion marrying in 
the same tenure class is not far below one-half, but slightly lower than 
the proportion marrying daughters of owners; and third, Negro sons of 
owners, who marry daughters of renters almost half again as often as they 
marry daughters of landowners. Thus, the tendency to marry into fami¬ 
lies of one's own tenure class is found most consistently among Southern 
white farmers, and seems least pronounced among Northern farmers. But 
the tendency is present, and to a significant degree, in each sample popu¬ 
lation . 


Let us now consider the question with respect to married sons and 
'daughters of our informants. We find, first, that two-thirds of Northern 


- 138 - 


informants’ sons whose fathers (informants) at the time of their marriage 
were landlords married the daughters not of landlords, but of landowners 
other than landlords. The number of cases of marriage involved in this 
comparison is small, but one wonders what has happened to the landlords' 
daughters, since none appear among the wives of landlords' sons. Next we 
find the same proportion (two-thirds) of full owners' and part-owners' 
sons marrying daughters of full owners and part-owners. About one-fourth 
of the sons in these tenure classes married daughters of renters. Among 
sons of renters, as contrasted with renters of the older generation, the 
majority married into families of the same tenure class (Table 82). 

Among Southern white landlords' sons we find that one-half married 
daughters of full and part-owners. Only one-fifth married daughters of 
landlords. A similar proportion married daughters of croppers, and one- 
tenth married daughters of renters. This represents a considerable devi¬ 
ation from the situation as shown by marriages of landlords' sons in the 
older generation, among whom nearly three-fourths married into landlords' 
families. Over one-half of Southern white owners' and part-owners' sons 
married daughters of families in the same tenure class, while one-third 
married daughters of renters. Less than 10 percent married landlords' 
daughters, and less than 10 percent married croppers' daughters. Among 
sons of renters, a majority married daughters of renters, but the pro¬ 
portion marrying daughters of owners were almost as large. A majority 
of croppers' sons married croppers' daughters, a smaller proportion mar¬ 
ried renters' daughters, and still fewer married owners' daughters (Table 
82). 

Five of the ten sons of Negro landlords married daughters of 
croppers and four married daughters of renters; only one married the 
daughter of an owner, who, in this case, was not a landlord at that. 
With sons of full and part-owners, however, the general tendency reap¬ 
pears, for the majority married daughters of the same tenure categories. 
About 30 percent each married daughters of renters and of croppers. Among 
renters' sons, however, over one-half married the daughters of croppers, 
one-third married the daughters of renters, and less than 10 percent 
married the daughters of owners. Finally, over two-thirds of Negro crop¬ 
pers' sons married daughters of croppers (Table 82). 

Taking up now the married daughters of our informants we find 
that the majority of Northern landlords' daughters married sons of full 
and part-owners. One-third married sons of renters, and the remainder 
married sons of landlords. Daughters of full and part-owners in two- 
thirds of the cases married sons of families belonging to the same tenure 
class, while one-fourth married sons of renters. Daughters of renters, 
although they married sons of renters more often than did daughters of 
owners or landlords, nevertheless in a majority of cases married sons of 
owners. Of the few daughters of laborers for whom we have information, 
nearly one-half married sons of renters, while one-third married sons of 
owners (Table 82). 


- 139 - 


Daughters of white landlords in the South in a majority of cases 
married the sons of full and part-owners. If we combine with this group 
those marrying sons of landlords, we may say that they married sons of 
landowners of one class or another in three-fourths of all cases. Daugh¬ 
ters of full and part-owners most frequently (60 percent) married sons 
of families in the same tenure class. If we again include the category 
of those marrying landlords, we may say that over 70 percent married sons 
of landowners. Daughters of renters in but 30 percent of the cases mar¬ 
ried sons of full or part-owners, while 43 percent of them married sons 
of renters. Daughters of croppers most frequently (43 percent) married 
sons of croppers, but married about one-fourth each into full or part- 
owners' and renters' families (Table 82). 

As in the case of sons of Negro landlords, so among their daugh¬ 
ters the majority married into croppers' families, but again we have too 
few cases to warrant safe generalization. Daughters of owners other than 
landlords, similarly, married into lower tenure class families in the 
majority of cases, about one-half marrying sons of renters, and one-third 
sons of croppers. Daughters of Negro renters married sons of renters 
and of croppers with almost equal frequencies, the proportion being about 
40 percent in either case. Daughters of Negro croppers alone most 
frequently married sons from families belonging to the same tenure class, 
the proportion being about 60 percent, while nearly one-third married 
sons of renters (Table 82). 

Summarizing with respect to the influence of tenure class on the 
selection of mates, we may say that regardless of generation, of sample 
population, or of tenure class, marriages tend to take place most often 
between the offspring of families belonging to the same tenure class, 
Disregarding the distinction we have made between landlords and other 
types of owners, we may say that in the case of Southern whites there are 
no exceptions to the generalization just made. Among Northern farmers, 
on the other hand, members of the lowest tenure classes, especially 
daughters, are marrying up the tenure ladder, and among Negroes of the up¬ 
per tenure classes they are marrying into those below them. The hy¬ 
pothesis that tenure classes are more significant among Southern white 
farmers than among Negro farmers in the South or among white farmers in 
the North thus receives further confirmation. Certainly the various 
tenure classes do not have the same meaning in all three sample popula¬ 
tions. Admittedly the frequencies involved in some of the tenure com¬ 
parisons are smaller than would be desired, but substantial numbers are 
involved in a sufficient number of comparisons to give strong support to 
this interpretation. 

We have seen that the average age of farmers composing the various 
tenure classes differs rather widely within each sample population and 
tha.t the sample populations in addition differ in this respect. What do 
these differences in average age mean with respect to the families of 
the same farmers? First to be considered is tne length oi time in yeai^ 


- 140 - 


that these families have existed as units. Among white owners' families, 
both North and South, the largest proportion in any category (35 percent 
for Northern owners and 28 percent for Southern white owners) have lasted 
between 20 and 29 years, while among Negro owners' families the largest pro¬ 
portion (25 percent) have lasted between 10 and 19 years. In each sample 
population there are more renters' families than owners' in the categories 
of shorter marriage duration and fewer renters' families than owners' in 
the categories of longer duration. The same tendency is found among 
croppers' families to an accentuated degree, while the extreme of this 
tendency is found among laborers. Over 50 percent of laborers' families 
in each sample population have lasted less than 10 years (Table 83) . 

Taking up size of resident family, we again find significant 
tenure differences. The size of resident family for this purpose is re¬ 
garded as consisting only of living parents and unmarried children now 
sharing the same home. All offspring who have left home are excluded, as 
are all deceased offspring. In each sample population, owners' families 
consist more frequently of 2 persons than of any other number. Further¬ 
more, there are more white farmers' families of this size in the owner 
class than in any other tenure class, while among Negroes the greatest 
concentration of 2-person families is to be found in the farm laborer 
class. Renters' families, especially those of white farmers, show a 
much wider dispersion as to size than do owners' families. More fami¬ 
lies of white renters consist of 4, 5, 6, or 7 members than appear in 
any other tenure class. Among Negro families, however, more of these 
large families are to be found among croppers than among renters. In the 
South, white croppers' families are more frequently of 4 members than of 
any other size, while the number is 2 with respect to Negro croppers' 
families. White laborers' families far more often consist of 3 members 
than any other number, and of 2 members, as was indicated, among Negro 
laborers. In brief, size of resident family tends to be smallest at the 
top and the bottom of the agricultural ladder and largest in the inter¬ 
mediate tenure classes (Table 84). 

A comparison of tenure classes with respect to the proportions of 
families of various types throws some further light on the relationship 
between tenure class and the family cycle. 24/ The larger proportions 


24/ As in chapter II, the terms used in defining the categories of 
families are as follows; "simple," consisting of not more than two gener¬ 
ations of kinsfolk, i.e., parents and children; "complex," including 
relatives other than parents and children, often involving three genera¬ 
tions; "incomplete," wife under 45 years of age; "complete," wife, 
living and present, but 45 years of age or over; "intact," husband and 
wife both living and present; "brother-sister" family, consisting simply 
of unmarried brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters; the remaining 
terms, "husband absent," "wife absent," and "one-person," are self-ex¬ 
planatory. 



- 141 - 


Table 83.- Percentages of farmers' families classified by duration 

of present marriage union 1/ 


Item 



; Owners : Renters : Croppers : Laborers 


Northern: 

Total number 

Percent married: 

Less than 10 years 
10 - 19 years 
20 - 29 years 
30 - 39 years 
40 - 49 years 
50 - 59 years 
60 - 69 years 

Southern white: 

Total number 

Percent married: 

Less than 10 years 
10 - 19 years 
20 - 29 years 
30 - 39 years 
40 - 49 years 
50 - 59 years 
60 - 69 years 

Negro: 

Total number 

Percent married: 

Less than 10 years 
10 - 19 years 

„ 20-29 years 

30 - 39 years 
40-49 years 
50 - 59 years 
60 - 69 years 


1/ Intact unbroken families only 
2/ Figures for Northern croppe 


286 

242 2/ 

56 

5 

26 

52 

18 

31 

21 

35 

24 

13 

23 

17 

9 

15 

1 

5 

4 

— 

— 

m — 

_ 

— 


319 

255 

154 

50 

10 

26 

44 

52 

23 

27 

25 

16 

28 

29 

20 

29 

23 

13 

9 

4 

13 

4 

2 

— 

3 

1 

— 

— 



— 

— 


98 

218 

320 

64 

13 

25 

43 

59 

25 

29 

24 

17 

24 

25 

18 

6 

20 

13 

10 

9 

15 

6 

4 

5 

3 

2 

1 

3 

— m 

— 

— 

— 


are included in this table. 

"s included with those for renters. 






- 142 - 


Table 84.- Percentages of farmers' families classified by number 

of members 1/ 


Number of persons 

• 

• 

: Owners 

• • 

: Renters : Croppers 

• 

: Laborers 

Northern: 






One 

7 


2 2/ 


12 

Two 

37 


25 


23 

Three 

23 


27 


36 

Four 

17 


20 


15 

Five 

9 


10 


7 

Six 

3 


9 


4 

Seven 

1 


5 


3 

Eight 

2 


1 


— 

Nine 

— 


— 


— 

Ten and over 

1 


1 


— 

Totals 

355 


263 


69 

Southern white: 






One 

5 

1 


3 

4 

Two 

29 

12 


17 

9 

Three 

22 

22 


22 

36 

Four 

15 

21 


23 

28 

Five 

11 

13 


10 

9 

Six 

8 

11 


10 . 

4 

Seven 

5 

8 


7 

4 

Eight 

3 

5 


2 

2 

Nine 

1 

3 


2 

2 

Ten and over 

1 

4 

* 

4 

2 

Totals 

398 

275 


168 

53 

Negro: 






One 

9 

6 


4 

16 

Two 

26 

26 


27 

36 

Three 

17 

19 


19 

18 

Four 

12 

15 


17 

9 

Five 

12 

7 


10 

5 

Six 

8 

8 


8 

4 

Seven 

5 

4 


5 

7 

Eight 

5 

7 


5 

1 

Nine 

2 

4 


2 

2 

Ten and over 

4 

4 


3 

2 

Totals 

128 

253 


372 

89 


1/ Among offspring living, unmarried resident persons only are included 
in number of members. 

ZJ Figures for Northern croppers included with those for renters. 





- 143 - 


of simple, intact, completed families found among landlords, full owners, 
and part-owners in the North are paralleled in the South by similar pro¬ 
portions only among white landlords' and full owners', and among Negro 
full owners' families. Part-owners' families in the South are much more 
frequently incomplete than complete, and landlords' families among 
Negroes contain a strikingly large proportion of cases in which the 
husband is absent. Renters' and laborers' families in the North, on the 
other hand, are much more frequently simple, intact, and incomplete than 
of any other type, and report a larger proportion of families of this 
type than do members of any other Northern tenure classes. In the South, 
the largest proportion of families in every tenure class, with the ex¬ 
ception of the two owning classes mentioned (landlords and full owners) 
are of this same type. Northern part-owners' families, it will be noted, 
are distributed much more like those of full owners and landlords, but 
in the South, on the contrary, both among white and Negro part-owners' 
families, the similarity is to the lower tenure classes. 

The relative frequency of 1-person families is greatest among 
colored and Northern farm laborers, and among landlords in each of the 
sample populations. Southern white farm laborers' families (being most 
frequently simple, intact, and incomplete) contain a much smaller pro¬ 
portion of 1-person units than do either of the other sample populations. 
Brother-and-sister families constitute one out of twenty among white 
landlords, whereas they are very infrequent among Negro landlords. The 
extent to which the widow is found among Negro landlords' families is 
surprising, there being more of these "husband absent" families than 
of any other type (Table 85). 

Closely related to type of family, obviously, is the number of 
living children. In this comparison are included all living offspring, 
married or unmarried and regardless of present residence. Far fewer 
families reporting no children are found among laborers than in any 
other tenure class both in the North and among Negroes. This is not true 
of white laborers in the South, however, for in this sample population 
both more owners and more croppers than laborers report no children. No 
living offspring are reported by practically one-fifth of white owners, 
both Northern and Southern, and by one-fourth of Negro owners, in spite 
of the fact, as was indicated above, that these families tend to be com¬ 
plete more often than incomplete. The frequencies for number of children 
decline sharply among Northern owners' and renters' families when the 
total exceeds 2, but in the South the decline is more gradual. Marked 
differences appear in the South, however, in each tenure class between 
the proportions of white and Negro families who report having no children. 
With the exception of laborers' families, which show a concentration in 
the 1-chi.ld category, the distributions for Southern white tenure classes 
are much the same. Among Negro families belonging to the various tenure 
classes there is also great similarity in the distribution of numbers of 
children, the only notable deviation being found, as has been indicated, 
in the case of laborers reporting no children (Table 86). 


-144- 


Table 85.- Percentages of farmers' families, classified by type of family 



: : 



Type of 

family 



Sample popula- 

: : 

Simple 1 J : 

Simple 1 J 

: 

• • 

• • 

:3rother: 

tion and tenure:Number of: 

intact 2/ : 

intact 2/ 

:Husband 

: Wife : 

: and 

: One 

status 

:families : 

incomplete Z/ic 

lomplete 

:absent 

:absent:Complex 4/:sister 

:member 

Northern: 








Landlords 

110 

15 

44 

7 

5 

9 6 

12 

Full owners 

149 

25 

56 

5 

1 

7 1 

3 

Part owners 

96 

34 

47 

2 

- 

16 1 

- 

Tenants 

263 

56 

29 

3 

- 

9 1 

2 

Farm laborers 

69 

55 

22 

1 

4 

6 

12 

Southern white: 








Landlords 

195 

27 

47 

8 

4 

5 5 

5 

Full owners 

162 

35 

46 

9 

3 

3 1 

2 

Part owners 

41 

61 

27 

5 

- 

2 2 

2 

Renters 

275 

65 

25 

2 

2 

3 1 

1 

C roppers 

168 

73 

20 

4 

2 

- 

1 

Farm laborers 

53 

74 

19 

4 

- 

2 

2 

Negro: 








Landlords 

32 

16 

25 

28 

9 

12 

9 

Full owners 

77 

39 

42 

9 

3 

5 3 

- 

Part owners 

19 

63 

31 

- 

- 

- - 

5 

Renters 

253 

56 

28 

4 

4 

5 

3 

Croppers 

372 

64 

18 

6 

3 

6 1 

2 

Farm laborers 

89 

52 

16 

7 

8 

6 

12 

1/ Not more than two generations, i.e.. 

parents and children. 



2/ Husband and 

wife both 

living and present. 





3/ Wife under 

45 years of 

age. 






_4/ Includes relatives other than parents 

and children, often involving three generations* 


Table 86 

.- Percentages of 

farmers' familie 
offspring of pres 

iS, classified by 
ent union 

number 

of 

living 


Sample popula- : 


:Percent reporting spec 

ified 

number 

• of living 

offspring 

of pro 

sent union 

tion and tenure: 

status :Totals 

: : 

:None: 

• 

• 

One : 

Two 

:Three 

: : 

:Four: 

Five: 

: : : 

Six :Seven:Eight:Nine 

• 

• 

: Ten 

: Eleven 
: and over 

Northern: 

Owners 

355 

20 

18 

23 

15 

10 

6 

4 2 

2 

- 

1 

- 

Tenants 

263 

17 

22 

21 

14 

11 

7 

3 1 

2 

- 

1 

- 

Farm laborers 

69 

27 

25 

19 

12 

4 

9 

3 1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Southern whites 

Owners 

398 

20 

13 

15 

13 

8 

8 

8 5 

6 

O 

Lt 


- 

Renters 

275 

12 

15 

18 

12 

10 

10 

6 5 

6 

3 

1 

1 

X 

Croppers 

168 

15 

21 

21 

10 

11 

7 

4 4 

2 

2 

V 

KJ 

- 

Farm laborers 

Negro: 

53 

13 

30 

21 

7 

13 

4 

4 

O 

6 



Owners 

128 

26 

13 

7 

13 

7 

10 

9 3 

3 

3 

1 

4 

Renters 

253 

31 

15 

13 

7 

9 

6 

6 5 

4 

2 

2 

1 

Croppers 

372 

32 

13 

14 

12 

7 

5 

5 2 

3 

3 

2 

1 

Farm laborers 

89 

45 

19 

9 

7 

6 

3 

3 3 

- 

2 

1 

1 











- 145 - 


Probably the outstanding inference to be drawn from this compari¬ 
son is with respect to contributions being made to the next generation by 
the various tenure classes. Since owners' families are reported to be 
complete more often than those in other tenure classes, the frequency 
with which they are childless, especially among Southern whites, is 
worthy of emphasis, 

This situation need give no cause for alarm as some would maintain. 
On the contrary, it would seem necessary for vacancies to be created at 
the top of the agricultural ladder if the process of climbing the ladder 
is to continue. In other words, if owners' families contribute to the 
next generation in the same numbers as do the lower tenure classes it 
seems probable that the processes of class differentiation and stratifi¬ 
cation, that is, of increased rigidity and impenetrability of class lines, 
would inevitably follow. Such a consequence, entirely at variance with 
traditional American social philosophy, is hardly to be welcomed. 

One final topic remains to be considered: the relation between 
education and tenure class. Let us first take up the material dealing 
with the education of our informants. There appear to be no great dif¬ 
ferences with respect to the educational attainments of Northern and 
Southern white farmers on the whole, but emphatic differences are found 
between those of white and Negro farmers. It seems clear, furthermore, 
that among Northern farmers tenure class has practically nothing to do 
with the amount of education received, that is, the median number of 
grades of schooling completed by members of no tenure class falls sig¬ 
nificantly below the median for Northern farmers as a whole. Among South¬ 
ern farmers, on the other hand, both white and Negro, the owning tenure 
classes and the related non-owning tenure classes report having received 
more education than the unrelated non-owning tenure classes. This dif¬ 
ference is most consistent among Negroes, but among Southern whites also 
the inconsistencies are apparently unimportant. 

The most pronounced deviation of any tenure-class figure from the 
Southern white median appears in the case of unrelated laborers whose 
education falls far below the sample population. Related Negro non-own¬ 
ers deviate most widely, but in the opposite direction, from the median 
figure for Negro farmers' education. Tenure class, in other words, seems to 
have little relationship to education in the North, but has consistent 
and significant relationships in the South, both among white and Negro 
farmers (Table 87). 

Having briefly examined the data with regard to education of 
informants, let us take up the same question with respect to oiu in¬ 
formants' children who are no longer attending school. Much the same 
situation exists in the younger generation as was present in the case 
of adult farmers. The most conspicuous difference appears between Negro 
and white children with respect to number of years of schooling complet¬ 
ed. Tenure differences of notable degrees again are found in the South, 


- 146 - 


while tenure differences among Northern farmers' children seem to be 
more significant than was true in the case of adult farmers. 


Table 87.= Median grades of schooling completed 


; 

Northern : 

Southern 

white 

Negro 

Tenure status 

: Number : 
:of cases; 

Median 

grades 

Number : 
of cases: 

Median 

grades 

: Number 
:of cases 

:Median 
;grades 

Landlords 

110 

8.2 

195 

8.0 

32 

5.6 

Full owners 

149 

8.3 

162 

8.0 

77 

4.7 

Part-owners 

96 

8.3 

41 

8.3 

19 

4.2 

Related renters 

67 

8.9 

62 

8.2 

18 

4.8 

Unrelated renters 

180 

8.1 

213 

7.0 

235 

4.0 

Related croppers 

10 

10.0 

37 

7.8 

18 

6.4 

Unrelated croppers 

6 

9.2 

131 

6.6 

354 

3.7 

Related laborers 

9 

8.2 

6 

7.0 

2 

8.0 

Unrelated laborers 

60 

8.1 

47 

5.8 

87 

4.1 

Totals 

687 

8.3 

894 

7.5 

842 

4.0 


The median grade of schooling reported by Northern children of no 
tenure class is below the eighth, but the children of farm laborers and 
of unrelated croppers, especially sons, have not gone far beyond that 
point. The children of landlords, part-owners, owners, and related 
croppers, on the other hand, report median years of schooling between 11 
and 12 years. The children of renters report educational attainments 
intermediate between those reported by children of owners and of labor¬ 
ers. 


Among Southern whites children of unrelated croppers report the 
lowest educational achievements. Those of unrelated renters come next, 
followed by those of related croppers and unrelated laborers; children of 
full owners are next, then of part-owners and of related renters. Land¬ 
lords' children report the highest education. The very few children of 
related laborers report educational attainments not inferior to those of 
owners' children, and higher in fact than those of part-owners’ children. 

The education reported by children of Negro part-owners and land¬ 
lords is far higher than that reported by children of any of the other 
tenure classes among Negroes. Children of full owners, renters, croppers, 
and laborers have had similar degrees of education, in each case less than 
that of the two classes mentioned. Although the children of unrelated 
croppers report the lowest median number of grades completed, it would 
appear that the differences by sex are frequently larger and possibly 
more significant than tenure-class differences apart from those first 
pointed out, daughters apparently getting relatively much more school¬ 
ing than sons in the same tenure classes (Table 88). 








- 147 - 


Table 88.- Median grades of schooling completed by offspring of present 
union not now attending school, classified by sex 




Male 


Female 

Tenure status 

: Total 

:Median grades: 

Total 

:Median grades 

of parent 

: number 

: completed : 

number 

: completed 


Northern: 


Landlords 

96 

11.4 

85 

12.4 

Full owners 

88 

11.3 

63 

11.1 

Part-owners 

115 

11.2 

127 

11.3 

Related renters 

17 

10.5 

15 

9.3 

Unrelated renters 

96 

9.0 

111 

11.2 

Related croppers 

2 

12.0 

2 

12.0 

Unrelated croppers 

1 

8.0 

3 

8.5 

Related laborers 

3 

8.0 

2 

9.0 

Unrelated laborers 

21 

8.4 

24 

9.5 

Southern white: 

Landlords 

210 

10.1 

175 

11.5 

Full owners 

34 

9.4 

29 

10.5 

Part-owners 

186 

9.8 

158 

11.4 

Related renters 

20 

10.0 

23 

10.6 

Unrelated renters 

193 

8.5 

180 

8.7 

Related croppers 

8 

9.0 

6 

9.0 

Unrelated croppers 

70 

7.2 

80 

7.9 

Related laborers 

4 

11.0 

5 

10.0 

Unrelated laborers 

22 

9.0 

18 

9.0 

Negro: 

Landlords 

46 

6.5 

42 

8. U 

Full owners 

11 

4.5 

5 

4.0 

Part-owners 

71 

6.9 

57 

7.0 

Related renters 

— 

— 

4 

4.3 

Unrelated renters 

159 

4.4 

141 

5.5 

Related croppers 

1 

4.0 

1 

6.0 

Unrelated croppers 

214 

3.5 

209 

4.7 

Related laborers 

— 

— 

•— 


Unrelated laborers 

25 

5.0 

34 

4.7 


Summarizing this comparison, we may say that the educational 
achievements of Northern children no longer attending school reveal tenure 
differences of a more pronounced nature than those that were present among 
their parents. This differentiation is due more largely to .he greater 
amount of education being received by the children of upper-class fami¬ 
lies than to a lack of education, that is, a serious handicapping of the 
children of any of the lower tenure classes. The previously indicated 








- 148 - 


tenure differences with respect to educational achievements among adults 
in the South are still present among their children, with the advantages 
of Negro landlords’ and full owners’ children over Negro part-owners’ 
and non-owners' children being especially pronounced. A similar but 
more evenly graduated differentiation appears among the tenure classes 
of Southern whites. In each of the three sample populations the children 
of unrelated croppers are in the most disadvantageous position with re¬ 
spect to education. Here is evidence of a perpetuation of tenure class 
differences in the South, and of their intensification both in the North 
and in the South. This difference, however, remains; the median amount 
of schooling reported by the lowest-ranking tenure class of Northern 
children is higher than the median for the highest-ranking tenure class 
among the Negro children. 

In other words, the sons of croppers and laborers in the North 
are getting more schooling than the sons of colored landlords in the 
South It would seem that tenure differences within the sample popula¬ 
tions, although they exist and doubtless are of some importance, a re 
relatively inconsequential in comparison with race differences . 

Another approach to the question of the relationship between tenure 
class and education involves a determination of the proportions of 
children of school age living at home who are still attending school, 
that is, of those who have not yet broken off their educational careers. 
In the groups 5 to 10 and 11 to 15 years of age, practically without re¬ 
gard to tenure class, the large majority of children are reported as at¬ 
tending school. 25/ 

As in the previous comparison, girls tend to persist in the edu¬ 
cational system more frequently than do boys - in about two thirds of 
all tenure-class comparisons the proportion of girls of specified ages 
who come from families of certain tenure classes is larger than that 
among comparable boys. Another consistent difference that appears be¬ 
tween age classes in each sample population is the smaller proportion of 
young people 16 to 20 years of age, regardless of tenure class, who are 
now attending school, as compared with the younger age group. This is 
doubtless due to the fact that the minimum educational requirements 
usually will have been satisifed while the young people are still in this 
age category (Table 89). 

The children of all tenure classes, apparently, are being ex¬ 
posed to the influence of the educational system with more or less com¬ 
parable frequency. Among Northern and Negro farmers’ families there 
seems to be a declining proportion of attendants as we descend the agri- 


25/ It is to be understood that answers to the question of "attending 
school" are not influenced by the fact of school being in session or not 
at time of inquiry. A child is reported as attending school if he is 
still in attendance whenever it is in session, regardless of how long 

the term may last. 



Table 89.- Percentages of offspring living at home who are reported as attending 

school, classified by age end sex 


Age group and : 

tenure status : 


Northern - 

5-10 years of age: 
Owners 
Renters 
Croppers 
Laborers 

11 - 15 years of age: 
Owners 
Renters 
Croppers 
Laborers 

16 - 20 years of age: 
Owners 
Renters 
Croppers 
Laborers 

Southern white - 


Males 

Total : Percent 


36 

86 

67 

79 

16 

69 

52 

94 

51 

98 

4 

75 

65 

31 

33 

33 

- 

- 

5 

100 


:_ Females _ 

: Total : Percent 


39 

87 

56 

86 

5 

60 

44 

89 

39 

97 

10 

90 

52 

36 

29 

48 

5 

60 


5-10 years of age: 
Owners 
Renters 
Croppers 
Laborers 

11 - 15 years of age: 
Owners 
Renters 
C ropper’s 
Laborers 

16 - 20 years of age: 
Owners 
Renters 
Croppers 
Laborers 

Negro: 


44 

82 

109 

82 

38 

95 

13 

85 

52 

94 

93 

97 

42 

95 

10 

90 

52 

54 

79 

40 

29 

41 

12 

25 


46 

72 

86 

77 

43 

98 

12 

100 

60 

92 

87 

84 

52 

96 

9 

88 

36 

55 

60 

60 

23 

39 

6 

50 


5-10 years of age: 
Owners 
Renters 
Croppers 
Laborers 

11 - 15 years of age: 
Owners 
Renters 
Croppers 
Laborers 

16 - 20 years of age: 
Owners 
Renters 
Croppers 
Laborers 


30 

90 

83 

75 

88 

70 

18 

83 

32 

94 

56 

91 

88 

87 

P 

87 

33 

45 

48 

37 

64 

31 

11 

36 


33 

91 

76 

84 

92 

73 

22 

50 

33 

94 

58 

93 

65 

85 

17 

94 

22 

64 

40 

45 

64 

41 

9 

67 











- 150 - 


cultural ladder, particularly in the lowest age category. But an ap¬ 
parently opposite trend appears in the same age category among Southern 
whites, which raises doubt regarding the significance of tenure dif¬ 
ferences in this comparison. 

Obviously this finding tells nothing about the nature of the in¬ 
struction, the ampleness or deficiency of equipment, the training of 
teachers, the length of the school year, and so on. It does suggest, 
however, that the existing educational framework may provide an adequate 
basis upon which to build an educational structure serving more equitably 
the members of all tenure classes, the possible result being a diminution 
of the marked tenure differences in total years of schooling ultimately 
acquired. 

How do farmers in various tenure classes differ in their atti¬ 
tudes toward the amount of schooling they themselves received? Signifi¬ 
cant and consistent tenure differences appear among v/hite farmers, both 
North and South. In each case fewer owners, slightly more renters, still 
more croppers, and most of all laborers, say they wish they had had more 
schooling. Among Negro farmers, moreover, regardless of tenure class, 
no less than 90 percent of all informants regard their education as in¬ 
adequate. In fact, in all tenure classes but owners this proportion is 
above 95 percent, actually reaching 99 percent among renters. This is 
practically the proportion of white laborers in the South giving the 
same response, namely 98 percent. Northern owners more frequently than 
any other tenure class deny any desire for more schooling (22 percent). 
It would seem, in other words, that the small differences between North¬ 
ern tenure classes with respect to education received are more largely 
the result of the upper classes' indifference to education beyond the 
eighth grade than to their inability to get all they want. In the South, 
tendencies similar to those found in the North, although not to so 
marked a degree, appear among both white and Negro farmers (Table 90) . 

How do the tenure classes vary with respect to the amount of 
schooling their members say they would like sons to have? In the North, 
the proportion specifying a high-school education increases, and the pro¬ 
portion specifying a college education decreases, as we go up the tenure 
ladder. In other words, laborers are thinking most frequently of high 
school as the limit and least often of college, while the proportion 
specifying high school is smallest, and specifying college is largest, 
among owners. 

Among Southern whites there is the same consistent trend through 
laborers, croppers, renters, and owners, each step up the tenure scale 
bringing a decrease in the proportion specifying high school and an in¬ 
crease in the proportion specifying college as the desired limit. In 
fact, the proportion of owners indicating college trainig as desirable 
is almost twice as large as that among laboers (38 percent and 21 per¬ 
cent, respectively ) . 


-151- 


Table 90»“ Percentages of farmers who say they wish or do not 
wish they had had more schooling 


Sample population : 

—and response : 

Total number 

Of cases 

: 

. 1 

-Yea 

-Percentages reporting 

J Uncertain : 

No 

Northern: 

Owners 

355 


66 

12 

22 

Tenants 

263 


70 

12 

18 

Laborers 

69 


93 

4 

3 

Southern white: 

Owners 

398 


80 

11 

9 

Renters 

275 


86 

5 

9 

Croppers 

l6S 


95 

5 


Laborers 

53 


98 


2 

Negro: 

Owners 

128 


92 

3 

5 

Renters 

253 


99 

1 


Croppers 

372 


97 

1 

2 

Laborers 

89 


96 

2 

2 


Table 91•- Percentages of farmers who think a 

specified amounts of education 

son should have 

Sample population : 

and education desired : 

Owners 

: : : 

: Renters : Cronners : 

Laborers 

Northern: 

College 

High school 

Grade school 

Other 

Uncertain 

Total number of cases 

S 

4 

7 

8 

355 

35 U 
49 

4 

7 

5 

263 


30 

4 

7 

69 

Southern white: 

College 

38 

31 

27 

21 

High school 

44 

50 

58 

66 

Grade school 

3 

2 

5 

5 

Other 

12 

l4 

5 

4 

Uncertain 

3 

3 

5 

2 

Total number of cases 

398 

275 

168 

53 

Negro: 

College 

31 

29 

27 

19 

High school 

26 

25 

25 

27 

Grade school 

5 

4 

4 

9 

Other 

31 

36 

3^ 

37 

Uncertain 

7 

6 

10 

8 

Total number of cases 

128 

253 

372 

89 


1/ Figures for Northern croppers included with those of renters* 












- 152 - 


Among Negro farmers, as we go up the tenure scale, there is a 
similar though relatively smaller increase in percentages specifying 
college as desirable. Furthermore, the proportions specifying high 
school are practically the same, that is, between 25 and 27 percent in 
each tenure class. A large proportion of Negro informants, regardless 
of tenure class, gave answers which could not be classified in terms of 
the conventional educational categories but were classified as "all other 
responses," examples of which are as follows: "enough to take care of 
his business"; "enough to be able to read and write"; "all he can get." 
From these examples it should be clear that the size of the category of 
"all other" responses in this sample population is indicative not of 
lack of interest in schooling, or a desire for it, on the part of the 
Negro farmers, but rather because they are pathetically unaware of the 
opportunities offered by the public educational system (Table 91). 




- 153 - 


Chapter V 


LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIPS: WHAT DO THEY INVOLVE? 


The Basic Problem 

Ihe problem to oe at cached in this chapter is to reduce a social 
relationship to such terms that we may express it quantitatively. The 
living reality of human interaction - changeable, subtle, and elusive - 
j-S not easily translated into cold and lifeless quantity. Nevertheless, 
this is what must be done if the relationships existing between landlords 
and xenants or croppers in one situation are to be compared with similar 
secs of relationships in entirely different areas or at other periods of 
time. 


Furthermore, we are curious about the differences appearing in the 
relationships existing between landlords and tenants on the one hand and, 
on the other, employers of farm laborers and farm laborers. To what ex¬ 
tent is there a difference, for example, between farm laborer, cropper, 

and renter insofar as supervision by landlord or employer is concerned? 

. < 

Having admitted that it is not easy to reach our objective, let us 
indicate briefly some of the difficulties involved. First, probably the. 
most serious difficulty grows out of the fact that social relationships 
themselves are intangible. You can see two people walking down the street, 
know a good deal about both of them as individuals, but know very little 
about the relationships between them. You may know parents and children 
well from meeting them separately at different times, but the maze of re¬ 
lationships that exists between them is a totally different matter. Simi¬ 
larly, the tenant working in his field, caring for his livestock, repair¬ 
ing his fences, visiting with his relatives, or playing with his baby, is 
one man; but when his landlord is present, he may appear to be a very 
different man. The extent to which the tenant farmer's behavior is in¬ 
fluenced by his landlord, whether the landlord be present or not, is de¬ 
cidedly a part of the general problem under consideration, But it is 
hardly possible to rig up a machine that, by indicating clearly in just 
what ways and to what degrees the tenant's behavior would differ if there 
were no landlord, would show the influence actually exerted by the land¬ 
lord. Therefore, although we are attempting to measure a social relation¬ 
ship, we are forced to resort to words in dealing with the situation. 

Second, quite apart from the difficulty of seeing a social rela¬ 
tionship for oneself is the difficulty of getting someone else to under¬ 
stand clearly what one is driving at. Words have such hazy outlines. 
Not all words suffer from a lack of definite meaning, for scientists try 
always to define terms with such sharpness and precision that they will 
mean the same thing to all scientists, regardless of when or where they 



- 154 - 


are used. In asking our questions it was necessary as far as possible 
to use words that are commonly found in most rural areas and use them 
with approximately the same meanings. 

Third, granting that we can see clearly those aspects of the rela¬ 
tionships between landlord and tenant that we want to study, and grant¬ 
ing that we are able to put this in simple, clear, and comprehensible 
terms, a final difficulty appears that is not less important than those 
we have already discussed: farmers are human beings after all. Suppose 
you talk to a tenant about these matters in which we are interested. 
Finally, you come to the present problem. You ask him what his landlord 
has to say about his farming operations. Suppose the landlord in ques¬ 
tion is definitely the "boss," at least with regard to the running of the 
farm. If the tenant has difficulty in admitting to himself his true sub¬ 
ordinate position, he will certainly have more difficulty in admitting 
this subordination to you, a total stranger. Before your interview is 
over the landlord may have come upon the place, may have approached his 
tenant and you, and by his general bearing and spoken behavior may have 
demonstrated very clearly that he is "running the farm" and, incidental¬ 
ly, "running the farmer" as well. In spite of such conclusive evidence, 
you may have heard from this tenant just a few minutes earlier that the 
landlord in question lets him run the place just about as he pleases. 
In other words, if a tenant’s self-esteem suffers by the admission that 
he is not an independent farm operator, it is rather difficult to get an 
accurate picture of the relationship between him and his landlord by 
means of his testimony alone. 

For this reason, landlords as well as tenants were interviewd on 
those questions involving land.lord=tenant relationships. Not that we 
assume tenants to be less truthful than landlords. The most unconscious 
forms of bias are those that must be sought out most diligently The 
farm laborer, naturally, is not unwilling to admit that he takes orders 
from someone else, for his status is well defined. 

Landlord-Tenant Interactions 

Taking up now our information with regard to the frequency and 
nature of interaction between landlord and tenant, we may consider first 
the responses from Northern farmers. Most landlords report that they 
visit the farms to talk over farming operations with their tenants only 
once a month or several times a year. Renters in the North also make such 
a report. The proportions who visit the farms daily, several times a 
week, or weekly, are comparatively insignificant. But this is not the 
case when we consider the frequency with which landlords employing farm 
laborers visit the farms to talk with their employees. Seventy percent of 
the members of this tenure class are visited daily. 

Among Southern white farmers, also, a large majority of farm la¬ 
borers report that they are visited daily by their landlord-employers. 



155 - 


while comparatively few are visited less frequently. The proportion of 
Southern wnite tenants, both renters and croppers, who report being 
visited by their landlords is small, regardless of the frequency of 
visits considered, because the large majority report their landlords to 
leave decisions entirely up to them. 

This is much less true of croppers than renters, however, for al¬ 
together over one—third of Southern white croppers report being visited 
by their landlords daily, several times a week, or once a week. It will 
be noted that the frequency of visits to the farm reported by white land¬ 
lords is much greater than that reported by white non-owners, with the 
exception of laborers, doubtless because many of these white landlords 
were referring to their visits to colored tenants or laborers. 

Considering the responses of colored farmers, we find that renters 
again rarely report landlords as visiting them, regardless of the fre¬ 
quency of visits. Among croppers, however, a majority (about 83 percent) 
report being visited daily, several times a week, or weekly. Only 13 
percent report that they are visited as rarely as monthly or several 
times a year. Practically 90 percent of colored laborers are visited by 
their landlords or employers daily, several times a week, or weekly, 
60 percent being visited daily, which was true also of Southern white 
laborers. 

In general we may say that farm laborers clearly have the greatest 
frequency of contact with their landlords or employers. Croppers in each 
sample population have considerably less frequent contact, but Negro 
croppers report frequencies much higher than do white croppers either in 
the North or in the South. Renters in all three sample populations re¬ 
port comparatively little such contact. Southern white renters reporting 
the least, Negro renters somewhat more, and Northern farmers the most. 
The frequency in each sample population is greatest in the category, 
"monthly or several times a year" (Table 92). 

What is the nature of the interaction when landlords and non- 
owners in the various tenure categories come together? We have at¬ 
tempted to determine the degree of supervision exercised by the land¬ 
lord in these conversations by classifying the responses into four cate¬ 
gories which range from complete freedom on the part of the non-owner 
to strict supervision over the tenant by the landlord. The first cate¬ 
gory includes those informants who say that the landlord leaves decisions 
entirely up to the non-owner; the second, those who say that the landlord 
simply discusses problems with the non-owner; the third, those who say that 
the landlord usually suggests what the non-owner should do, but that he 
does not command; and the fourth, those who say that the landlord gives 
strict orders — tells them what to do and how to do it. Because of their 
small number, responses from Negro farmers in the landlord group must be 
interpreted only tentatively. The figures we have, however, show that 
Negro landlords leave decisions to non-owners with the same frequency 


- 156 - 


Table 92.- Percentages of farmers reporting that landlord/employer 
comes to farm to discuss farming operations with 
tenant/employee specified frequencies 


Sample population : 
and tenure 
of respondent :re 

Total : 

cases : 

Frequency of visits - 

- percentages 

(porting 1/: 

Daily 

Weekly 2/ : 

Monthly 3/ 

Northern: 





Landlord/ 





employer 

82 

16 

22 

60 

Renters 

121 

6 

13 

92 

Croppers 

12 

17 

25 

33 

Laborers 

67 

70 

22 

1 

Southern white: 





Landlord/ 




• 

employer 

109 

59 

27 

8 

Renters 

36 

17 

22 

50 

Croppers 

69 

36 

42 

20 

Laborers 

49 

65 

12 

2 

Negro: 





Landlord/ 





employer 

17 

12 

53 

29 

Renters 

61 

18 

34 

43 

Croppers 

253 

45 

38 

13 

Laborers 

85 

61 

33 

— 

1/ This question was 

applicable 

to only 

a part of the 

farmers inter- 

viewed. See Schedule, 

Part IVa, questions 

30 and 31. 


2/ "Weekly" includes 

visits weekly or more 

! often but not 

daily. 

3/ "Monthly" includes 

! visits monthly or several times a 

year. 


as that reported by Southern white landlords. but less than one-sixth 
as many colored as white landlords say they give strict orders. Negro 
laborers more often than any other tenure class, either Northern or 
Southern, say they are given strict orders (practically 75 percent). 
(See Table 93). 

What difference does kinship make in the interaction between land¬ 
lord and tenant? It means in the North that the related tenant receives 
the benefit of discussion with the landlord more often than does the 
unrelated tenant, and conversely, that the unrelated tenant more often 
has left entirely up to him the making of decisions regarding farming 
operations. 

In the South, on the contrary, these tendencies are reversed: the 
related tenant has decisions left entirely to him with considerably more 







- 157 - 


Table 93.- Percentages of farmers who report that landlords, with regard 
to farming operations, exercise varying degrees of control 


Tenure status 

• • 

• • 

; Total number : 

Percentages 

and kinship 

reporting : A 1/ : 

B 1/ : Cl/: 01/ 


Northern 


By tenure: 


Landlords 

110 

Renters 

247 

Croppers 

16 

Laborers 

69 

By kinship to 


landlord: 


Related tenants 

77 

Unrelated tenants 

186 

Southern white 


By tenure: 


Landlords 

193 

Renters 

274 

Croppers 

168 

Laborers 

53 

By kinship to 


landlord: 


Related tenants 

98 

Unrelated tenants 

344 

Negro 


By tenure: 


Landlords 

30 

Renters 

253 

Croppers 

372 

Laborers 

89 

By kinship to: 


landlord: 


Related tenants 

36 

Unrelated tenants 

589 


25.5 

50.0 

15.5 

4.6 

51.0 

34.4 

8.9 

2.0 

25.0 

50.0 

18.7 

— 

2.9 

10.1 

21.7 

62.3 


41.6 

44.1 

10.4 

— 

52.7 

31.7 

9.1 

2.' 


43.5 

9.3 

19.2 

23.8 

86.9 

7.3 

1.8 

.7 

58.9 

19.6 

10.7 

9.5 

7.5 

9.4 

9.4 

54.7 


83.7 

8.2 

3.1 

4.1 

74.1 

13.1 

5.8 

4.1 


43.3 

20.0 

23.3 

3.3 

75.9 

4.7 

12.3 

6.3 

32.0 

11.0 

21.0 

35.8 

4.5 

2.2 

13.5 

74.2 


66.7 

11.1 

13.9 

8.3 

48.7 

8.3 

17.7 

24.8 


1/ (A) Leave decisions entirely up to tenants/employees; (B) simply dis¬ 
cuss problems with them; (C) usually suggest what to do but do not com¬ 
mand; (D) give strict orders. 













- 158 - 


frequency than the unrelated tenant. Among Southern white tenants the 
landlord, when he is dealing with a relative, more often "simply dis¬ 
cusses problems" and "suggests but does not command." Among Negroes the 
unrelated tenant receives strict orders from his landlord considerably 
more often than does the related tenant (Table 93) . Thus we see again 
that the nature of the status held by a tenure category in the North is 
decidedly different from that of the comparable category among Southern 
farmers. 

Northern landlords and tenants get together more frequently to 
discuss their mutual problems than do Southern landlords and tenants. 
This is true whether we examine the evidence given by landlord or by ten¬ 
ant. The renter in each sample population clearly has greater indepen¬ 
dence in his operation of the farm than does either of the other non¬ 
owning tenure classes, but the Northern renter either through choice or 
necessity is not left so completely to himself in running the farm as is 
the Southern renter. 

The cropper in all three sample populations holds an intermediate 
position. In the North, however, this status approximates that of the 
renter much more closely than that of the laborer, whereas in the South, 
particularly among Negroes, it seems to partake as much of the laborer's 
as of the renter's position. 

As a final tenure-class comparison with respect to the nature of 
the landlord-tenant interaction, we may consider briefly the proportions 
in the various tenure classes who are visited frequently or rarely in the 
four "degree-of-landlord-influence" categories. By "frequently visited" 
non-owners are meant those who report being visited by their landlords 
daily, several times a week, or weekly; and by those who are "rarely 
visited" we mean to include those who report being visited by their land¬ 
lords several times a year but not oftener than once a month. Among re¬ 
lated renters in the North over one-fourth say their landlords leave de¬ 
cisions entirely up to them and they are visited rarely. Likewise, among 
unrelated renters the most common situation (31 percent of the cases) is 
for the landlord to leave the decisions entirely up to the renter and to 
visit the farm rarely. The antithesis of this situation, with regard to 
degree of landlord influence, is to be found among unrelated Negro crop¬ 
pers in the South: most frequently (33.6 percent of the cases) they re¬ 
port receiving strict orders from their landlords and being visited fre¬ 
quently . 

In terms of these four categories, the largest proportions of non¬ 
owning informants in each of the sample populations say that their land¬ 
lords leave decisions with respect to farming operations to be made by 
themselves, Only among Southern whites, however, does the proportion 
giving this response include a large majority (almost 70 percent). 
Among Northern farmers the category "landlord simply discusses prob¬ 
lems" includes almost one-third of all non-owners, while among Negro 
farmers a similar proportion is found in the category "landlord gives 


- 159 - 


strict orders." The distributions in the three sample populations ac¬ 
cording to these types of landlord-tenant interaction, however, are 
strongly influenced by the proportions of all farmers in a sample popu¬ 
lation v/ho belong to one or another tenure class. Therefore, we shall 
next take up a tenure-class analysis of the landlord-tenant interactions 
in the three sample populations. 

In just one-half of all cases, Northern landlords report that they 
simply discuss farming problems with their tenants or laborers. One- 
fourth leave decisions entirely up to the tenant or laborer, and only 
one-twentieth give strict orders. Northern renters most often say their 
landlords leave decisions entirely up to them. This is true in slightly 
over one-half the cases. About one-third say their landlords discuss 
problems with them. Less than one-tenth say the landlord suggests, but 
does not command, while 2 percent say they are given strict orders by 
their landlords. Northern croppers most frequently say their landlords 
discuss problems with them, the proportion giving this response being the 
same as that among landlords. In fact, the responses of Northern croppers 
parallel those of Northern landlords quite closely throughout. Northern 
laborers, on the other hand, in only 3 percent of all cases say that de¬ 
cisions are left entirely up to them. About 10 percent say that problems 
are simply discussed with their employers. Twenty percent, roughly, say 
they receive suggestions but not commands while over 60 percent say they 
are given strict orders. 

A large majority of tenants among white Southern farmers say their 
landlords leave decisions entirely up to them. This is true for nearly 
90 percent of renters and for 60 percent of croppers. Landlords also re¬ 
port this to be the case more often than otherwise. In fact, throughout 
this sample population comparatively few informants mention any other type 
of relationship, with the exception of laborers who report in 55 percent 
of the cases that they are given strict orders. 

Negro renters, as do Southern white tenants, in a large majority of 
cases (over 75 percent) say that decisions are left entirely up to them. 
Other types of relationship are reported comparatively infrequently. 
Negro croppers, on the other hand, report that they are given strict or¬ 
ders more often than that any other type of relationship exists. This 
category includes about 36 percent of all Negro croppers. About 32 per¬ 
cent say that decisions are left up to them, while about 20 percent say 
they usually receive suggestions but not commands. 

Between these two extremes exists a wide variety of combinations 
of frequency or rarity of visitation by the landlord, coupled with vary¬ 
ing degrees of control exercised in the course of those visits. Although 
there are but few croppers in the North and although these are visiced 
.frequently, they say that their landlords simply discuss problems with 
them. Not one of them says that he is given strict orders by his land¬ 
lord. White croppers in the South, similarly, although not so free from 
strict supervision as Northern croppers, report frequent visits and strict 


- 160 - 


Table 94.- Percentages of tenants who report that landlords, with regard 
to fanning operations, exercise varying degrees of control, classi¬ 
fied by frequency of landlords visits to the farm 


Degree of control : 
and frequency of : 
landlord’s visits l/ i 

Related 

renters 

: : 

: Unrelated : 

: renters : 

Related 

croppers 

: 

: Unrelated 
: croppers 

Northerns 

Total number reporting 

67 

180 

10 

6 

(A) 

Frequently 

4 

- 

- 

- 

Rarely 

27 

31 

10 

17 

(B) 

Frequently 

10 

3 

50 

- 

Rarely 

18 

21 

— 

17 

(c) 

Frequently 

6 

1 

- 

- 

Rarely 

3 

4 

10 


(D) 

Frequently 


1 

- 

— 

Rarely 

- 

2 

- 

- 

Southern white: 

Total number reporting 
(A) 

Frequently 

62 

213 

37 

131 

— 

mm 


3 

Rarely 

5 

7 

3 

1 

(B) 

Frequently 

3 

3 

11 

13 

Rarely 

2 

2 


5 

(c) 

Frequently 

2 

1 

3 

10 

Rarely 

- 

1 

3 

1 

(D) 

Frequently 

- 

1 

8 

8 

Rarely 

2 

- 


1 

Negro: 

Total number reporting 
(A) 

Frequently 

18 

235 

18 

354 



6 


Rarely 

- 

1 


1 

(B) 

Frequently 

6 

1 

6 

7 

Rarely 

— 

3 

1 

3 

(C; 

Frequently 

- 

6 

22 

15 

Rarely 

6 

5 


5 

(D) 

Frequently 

mm 

5 

17 

34 

Rarely 

* 

2 

— 

2 


17(A) Leave decisions entirely up to tenants/employees; (B) simply discuss prob- 

lems with them; (C) usually suggest what to do but do not command; (D) give strict 
orders. Concerning use of terms "frequently and "rarely" see text, page 158. 





- 161 


orders only one—fourth as often as do Negro croppers. White renters re¬ 
port practically no instances of such frequency of visitation or strict¬ 
ness of control, although it is reported by 5 percent of Negro unrelated 
renters. In other words, the Negro renter, though far freer and more 
independent than the cropper, is still not so completely independent as 
the white renter. 

Thus we get a sort of hierarchy of independence among non-owners, 
the greatest degree of independence being found, apparently, among North¬ 
ern renters and croppers and Southern white renters. Then come Negro 
renters, white croppers, and Negro croppers in that order. Whether this 
hierarchy points to innate and ineradicable differences, or whether it 
means simply that different ways of doing things have become customary 
among different groups of farmers, is not our question to answer; but the 
fact that Negro renters definitely show greater independence than white 
croppers indicates that the differences involved do not strictly follow 
race lines (Table 94). 


The Question of the Rental Agreement 

As was pointed out in chapter II, the nature of the rental agree¬ 
ment is regarded by many students of problems related to tenancy as 
practically the crux of the problem of improving the tenant's situation. 
The rental agreement can have little binding control, however, or contain 
but few of the numerous and complex suggested provisions unless it is 
written rather than verbal. Accordingly, it is important to ascertain the 
proportion in each tenure class who report having written leases. 

We find that in the North nearly one-half of all tenants say 
they have written rental agreements. Part-owners report them only in one- 
fourth of the cases. About the same proportion of landlords in the North 
report written rental agreements. Laborers regardless of sample popula¬ 
tion practically never report having a written contract as the basis of 
their relationships to their employers. 

Among Southern white farmers the largest proportion of written 
rental agreements reported by any tenure class is found among renters, and 
here it is only about one-fifth of the total. Only one-tenth of croppers 
report the same. Likewise landlords in only about one—tenth of the cases 
say they have written leases. No part-owners report written leases. 

Among Negro farmers, on the other hand, almost two-thirds of part- 
owners report written rental agreements, which is the largest proportion 
reported by any Negro tenure class. Next come renters, among whom the 
proportion is almost 40 percent, while only 15 percent of croppers report 
written rental agreements. The percentage of Negro landlords reporting 
the same, about 20 percent, is midway between the proportions found among 
Northern landlords and Southern white landlords (Table 95). 



162 - 


What is the relationship between kinship to landlord and the use 
of written rental agreements? In the North and among Negro farmers the 
written rental agreement is found considerably less frequently when kins¬ 
folk are involved than when landlord and tenant are unrelated. It may be 
pointed out further that the proportion of white related non-owners having 
written leases is about twice as large as that found among colored related 
non-owners (Table 95). 


Table 95.- Percentages of farmers reporting written rental agree¬ 
ments, classified by tenure, by kinship to landlord, and by 

local area 


Tenure status, kinship 
and local area 

: Northern : 

Southern white 

: Negro 

By Tenure: 




Landlords 

26.4 

11.4 

20.0 

Part-owners 

22,0 

— 

60.0 

Renters 

46.4 

20.4 

38.7 

Croppers 

1/ 

11.3 

16.1 

By Kinship to Landlord: 




Related Tenants 

17.4 

14.4 

7.9 

Unrelated Tenants 

23.9 

15.3 

23.1 

By Local Area: 




Illinois (McLean) 

50.0 



Iowa (Jones) 

62.1 



Missouri (Gentry) 

49.3 



Ohio (Mercer) 

21.4 



Alabama (Hale) 


88.9 

59.4 

Arkansas (Jefferson) 


25.0 

21.2 

Louisiana (Red River Parish) 


17.5 

14.4 

North Carolina (Union) 


2.9 

1.9 

North Carolina (Wilson) 


1.9 

9.7 

Oklahoma (Beckham) 


27.7 

2/ 

South Carolina (Greenville) 


8.0 

11.1 

Tennessee (Crockett) 


23.0 

12.5 

Texas (Collin) 


7.0 

2/ 

Texas (Nacogdoches) 


14.3 



1/ Figures for Northern croppers included with those for renters. 
2/ No Negroes interviewed, 


t jy-et' n .?'*©> 

Before concluding this discussion, it is desirable to ascertain the 
extent to which farmers say they want their rental agreements to be in 
writing. The question put to each non-owner was this: "If you had the 









- 163 - 


chance, would you make any changes in your rental agreement?" If the 
farmer said "Yes," this question followed; "If so, what changes would you 
make?” In this way we hoped to learn exactly what was on the farmer's 
mind with regard to his leasing agreement, and particularly we hoped to 
learn what, if anything, was the chief source of irritation. 

We asked the question in this way so that we should learn what 
farmers are actually thinking on this subject, and what changes they them¬ 
selves would like to see brought about as distinguished from changes 
that are recommended by more academic specialists. 

In the first place, the proportion of all non-owners who, asked the 
first question, answered, "Yes," they would like to make certain changes in 
their renting agreement if they had the chance, was comparatively small 
among white tenants but large among Negro tenants. Keeping this fact in 
mind we may take up the proportions who, when asked for the specific chan¬ 
ges they had in mind, mentioned a written rental agreement. Among all 
Northern renters suggesting certain changes in leasing agreements, the 
proportion who specify among these changes a written rental agreement is 
3 percent. Among Southern renters, both white and colored, the propor¬ 
tion specifying this type of change is about 20 percent. Among Southern 
croppers the percentage is only 15 in the case of white farmers, but nearly 
30 among colored farmers. In other words, it seems that very few North¬ 
ern renters who seriously want to have written leases are incapable of 
securing them. On the other hand, about one-fifth of Southern renters are 
apparently unable to secure this type of agreement with their landlords, 
and substantial proportions of croppers (about twice as many among colored 
farmers as among white) are in the same predicament (Table 96). 

A second important element in the rental agreement which many re¬ 
gard as of basic significance is the period of time involved in the agree¬ 
ment, that is, the length of time that the two parties agree it shall 
run. Regardless of tenure class, large majorities of farmers in all three 
sample populations report that their rental agreements run for 1 year at 
a time only. The proportion among Northern farmers is practically two- 
thirds whether we consider the information supplied by landlords, part- 
owners, tenants, or laborers. The same is true of white part-owners in 
the South. Larger proportions of Southern white farmers in the remaining 
tenure classes report a similar rental period, the range being from 70 
percent for laborers to nearly 90 percent for landlords. It will be 
noted that the percentage of white Southern landlords reporting 1-year 
leases, although higher than that found among white non-owning classes, 
is practically the same as that reported by non-owning Negro farmers. 
Regardless of tenure class, with the exception of landlords, Negro farmers 
report higher percentages operating on the basis of 1—year rental agree¬ 
ments than do the same tenure classes in other sample populations (Fig. 

.21, p. 166). 


- 164 - 


Table 96.- Percentages of tenant farmers dissatisfied with present 
rental agreement who suggest specified changes 1/ 


; 

Northern 

: Southern 

white : 

Negro 

Suggested changes ; 

tenants 

;Renters;Croppers;Renters:Croppers 

Written rental agreement 

2.9 

21.2 

15.5 

18.9 

27.8 

Longer term for lease 

50.7 

28.8 

11.1 

25.8 

16.1 

Increase tenant's share 

of income 

33.2 

15.2 

51.1 

39.4 

50.4 

More supervision of tenant 

by landlord 

1.4 

1.5 

15.1 

2.3 

8.5 

Less supervision of tenant 

by landlord 

5.8 

10.6 

6.7 

6.1 

2.8 

Compensation of tenant for 

his improvement of farm 

7.2 

3.0 

2.2 

7.6 

13.7 

Compensation of landlord by 

tenant for damaging farm 

— 

1.5 

— 

2.3 

18.2 

Increase of landlord's share 

of income 

— 

1.5 

2.2 

.8 

1.4 

More repairs to farm build- 

ings, etc. 

5.8 

— 

2.2 

1.5 

.9 

Change mode of rent payment 

1.4 

10.6 

2.2 

3.8 

1.9 

Better credit arrangements 

1.4 

1.5 

— 

4.5 

5.7 

Fairer treatment or settle- 

ment 

— 

— 

— 

— 

5.2 

Total number reporting 

69 

66 

45 

132 

212 

1/ Some respondents gave more than one suggestion. 




Table 97.- Percentages of non-owners 

reporting 1-year 

rental agreements 

I 

Total 

Percentages report- 

Sample population 

reporting 

ing 1-year rental 

and tenure status 

number 

agreements 

Northern: 

Related to landlord 

86 

37 

Unrelated to landlord 

246 

73 

Southern white: 

Related to landlord 

104 

72 

Unrelated to landlord 

391 

81 

Negro: 

Related to landlord 

38 

61 

Unrelated to landlord 

656 

90 














- 165 - 


A comparison of related and unrelated tenants with respect to the 
same question shows that in each sample population the proportion report¬ 
ing 1-year rental agreements is larger among the latter than among the 
former. The difference is greatest among Northern tenants, almost as great 
among Negroes, but considerably less among Southern white tenants. This 
is due less to the fact that unrelated Southern white tenants have fewer 
1-year rental agreements than to the fact that so much larger a proportion 
of related tenants in this sample population have 1-year rental agree¬ 
ments. In fact, this proportion (over 70 percent) is practically the 
same as that found among unrelated tenants in the North (Table 97) . 

Let us now ascertain our farmers' preferences, assuming they had a 
chance to change their rental agreements. This is the crux of the ten¬ 
ant's problem more often than any other element in the leasing agreement 
so far as Northern tenants are concerned. Slightly over 50 percent of all 
Northern renters suggesting changes in their rental agreements specify 
that they would like to have a longer lease. Among the responses of white 
Southern renters it is likewise most frequent, being mentioned by nearly 
30 percent of all who suggest changes. Although one other suggested 
change exceeds this in importance in the minds of Negro renters, it is 
mentioned by a sufficiently large proportion (25 percent) for us to re¬ 
gard it as unquestionably significant. 

Briefly then, so far as white renters are concerned, no modifica¬ 
tion of present renting arrangements would meet with more widespread ap¬ 
proval than an extension of the length of time for which their leases run. 
Furthermore, this type of change would meet with the approval of at least 
the 25 percent of Negro renters who mention it. 

Accordingly, our data may be said to support the advocates of the 
lengthened rental agreement as one of the most promising points, if not 
the best one, at which to begin an attempted improvement in the lot of 
the tenant. Other problems assuredly exist, some of which may now be ex¬ 
amined on the basis of the information supplied by our tenant farmers 
(Table 96) . It would be difficult to say just what would be regarded as 
the optimum period of duration as we did not get information on this 
subj ect. 

As was indicated, when white tenants are given the opportunity to 
specify any changes they would like to see introduced into their rental 
agreements, the large majority either respond negatively — they are not 
anxious to make any change — or are uncertain as to whether oi not they 
would like to see changes made. Among white farmers iewei pait—owneis 
than those in any other tenure class say they would like to see such 
changes brought about. Among Negro farmers the smallest propoition is 
found among landlords. White landlords comparatively rarely suggest 
^changes. -Among Northern farmers more tenants (between 25 and 30 percent) 
than members of any other tenure class indicate a desire for changes. 
Among Southern white farmers changes are suggested by between 25 and oO 
percent in each non—owning tenure class. Not until we examine the i e- 


-3 66 - 


percent 


80 


60 


40 


20 


0 

NUMBER 



—► 110 59 263 69 193 23 274 168 53 30 10 253 372 89 

Landlords 33 -Parf owners Renters Croppers 


Laborers 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 32712 8UREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 21,- Percentages of farmers who have one-year rental agreements. 



LANDLORDS | RENTERS ; LANDLORDS; RENTERS ;LABORERS LANDLORDS; RENTERS; LABORERS 
PART OWNERS LABORERS PART OWNERS CROPPERS PART OWNERS CROPPERS 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 32713 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 22.- Percentages of farmers who say they would like to make 

CHANGES IN RENTAL AGREEMENTS. 













































































- 167 - 


sponses of Negro farmers, however, do we find the percentage of non-owners 
suggesting changes actually to exceed the proportion who do not specify 
desired changes. Forty percent of colored laborers, 55 percent of colored 
renters, and practically 60 percent of colored croppers suggest one or 
more desired changes in their rental agreements. 

On this basis we may say that part-owners in the North represent 
the one extreme, while colored croppers in the South represent the op¬ 
posite, regarding degree of satisfaction felt with present rental ar¬ 
rangements, there being relatively nearly 12 of the latter to every 1 of 
the former who specify desired changes in rental agreements (Fig. 22). 


Table 98.- Percentages of tenants dissatisfied with present 

agreements 1/ 


Sample population :Total number;Percentages report- 

and tenure status : reporting :ing dissatisfaction 


Northern: 


Related to landlord 

77 

10 

Unrelated to landlord 

186 

36 

Southern white: 

Related to landlord 

98 

16 

Unrelated to landlord 

344 

29 

Negro: 

Related to landlord 

36 

17 

Unrelated to landlord 

353 

60 

1/ Total figures include 

renters and croppers only. 



In each of the sample populations significant differences appear 
between the proportions of related and unrelated tenants who are dissatis¬ 
fied with their present renting agreements. Changes are suggested by over 
three times as many unrelated as related non—owners in the North, by al¬ 
most twice as many among white farmers in the South, and by nearly four 
times as many among colored farmers. Larger proportions oi instances of 
dissatisfaction - of suggested changes - are reported by related tenants 
in the South, both among white and Negro, than in the North. The largest 
proportion of dissatisfied tenants (60 percent) is lound among colored 
y tenants unrelated to landlord. The greater degree oi satisfaction ex¬ 
perienced by related tenants in their relationships with their landlords 
is probably one of the most important points of difference between them 
and unrelated tenants (Table 98). 









- 168 - 


Let us now take up the types of changes suggested in addition to 
the two already mentioned - written rental agreements and longer terms for 
leases. The latter suggestion is given more frequently than any other by 
white renters, both in the North and in the South, but among Southern 
croppers, both white and colored, much larger percentages say they think 
the tenant should have a bigger share of the farm income. No less than 
50 percent of all croppers specifying changes in either Southern sample 
population give this suggestion. It is likewise mentioned more frequently 
than any other type of change by colored renters. Among Northern renters 
just one-third of all those suggesting changes make the same recommend¬ 
ation (Table 96, p, 164), 

Next most important among Southern tenants, in terms of frequency, 
is the written rental agreement. But this does not hold true regarding 
Northern tenants, for three other types of changes are mentioned with 
greater frequency by them. Those other suggestions are: first, that the 
tenant should be compensated for what permanent improvements he makes in 
the farm; second, that there should be less supervision by landlord over 
the tenant; and third, that the landlord should keep the farm buildings, 
fences, etc., in general better repair. No other responses given by 
Northern tenants appear with significant frequency (Table 96, p, 164), 

Among white Southern farmers rather marked differences are to be 
found between changes recommended by renters and by croppers, Practically 
15 percent of these croppers suggesting changes say they want more super¬ 
vision by landlord over tenant, while one-half this percentage, apparent¬ 
ly feeling that the landlord already exercises too much control, say they 
would prefer to have less supervision. About 10 percent of white Southern 
renters say they would prefer less supervision by the landlord; less than 
2 percent would prefer the opposite change. About 10 percent of the same 
group would prefer to have a change made in the mode of rent, payment, while 
this is true of only 2 percent of croppers. Scattering responses make up 
the remaining suggestions (Table 96, p. 164). 

The same discrepancy as was found among Southern whites appears be¬ 
tween colored croppers and renters with regard to the question of super¬ 
vision by landlord over tenant. Colored tenants are much less concerned 
about supervision by landlord, however, either to increase or to diminish 
it, than they are about the other changes that have previously been dis¬ 
cussed . 


Among the scattering small percentages which remain, only two seem 
worth noting. First, about 5 percent both of renters and of croppers sug¬ 
gest better credit arrangements. This percentage, while small, is larger 
than that found among white farmers, either Northern or Southern. Second, 
practically 5 percent of colored croppers say they would like to see fair¬ 
er treatment from their landlords, or greater justness in settlement, than 
they now receive. This type of change, although mentioned by only a few 
colored croppers, is not specified by any white farmers nor by any colored 
renters (Table 96, p. 164). 


- 169 - 


Landlord-Tenant Disagreements 

As pointed out in chapter II, it is only rarely that potential 
landlord-tenant, conflict actually reaches the stage of open disagreement. 
That the frequency of disagreements reported by colored non-owners is much 
greater than among white non—owners, either Northern or Southern, has also 
been indicated. 

The next question is; How do the tenure classes compare in this 
respect? Among Northern renters and laborers the frequencies are practi¬ 
cally the same (about 3 percent), while no cases of disagreement are re¬ 
ported by Northern croppers. The proportion of disagreements appearing 
among Southern white croppers is identical with that found among Northern 
renters and laborers; even fewer are reported for Southern white renters; 
none whatever are reported for Southern white laborers. Among Negro farm¬ 
ers, on the other hand, the proportion in the tenure class reporting the 
fewest disagreements is twice as large as that found in the tenure class 
reporting the most frequent disagreements among white farmers. Colored 
croppers report disagreements with landlord during the past year more fre¬ 
quently than do either of the other non-owning tenure classes among Ne¬ 
groes, but farm laborers come not far behind. About one in ten in these 
two tenure classes reports having had a disagreement of this type during 
the past year, while over one in twenty among colored renters reports the 
same (Fig. 23). 


Table 99.- Percentages of non-owners reporting disagreements with 

landlords during the past year 


Sample population 
and tenure status 

•.Total number: 

: reporting : 

Percentages report¬ 
ing disagreements 

Northern; 

Related to landlord 

86 

2 

Unrelated to landlord 

246 

3 

Southern white: 

Related to landlord 

104 

1 

Unrelated to landlord 

391 

2 

Negro: 

Related to landlord 

38 

3 

Unrelated to landlord 

676 

10 


The influence of kinship to landlord upon disputes between tenant 
and landlord is pronounced. In the sample population reporting most fre¬ 
quent disagreements with landlord (Negro farmers), these are nearly four 
times as frequent among unrelated non—owners as among related non-owners. 








- 170 - 


percent 


10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 



NUMBER -► 247 16 69 


274 168 53 253 372 89 



Renters 



Croppers 


7 ?Z\ Laborers 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 32714 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 23.- Percentages of non-owners reporting disagreements with 

landlord/employer during past year. 


PERCENT 


80 


60 


40 


20 


0 

NUMBER 


NORTHERN 


m 




SOUTHERN 

WHITE 




✓ S 

Vt 
/ * 
/ / 


110 247 16 69 

Landlords 


193 274 168 53 


NEGRO 



Renters 


Y7A Croppers 


30 253 372 89 

E2 Laborers 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 32715 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 24.- Percentages of farmers reporting landlord to have control 
OVER TENANTS' /employees' OPERATING CREDIT. 
























































































- 171 


Although the same tendency is present in the other two sample populations, 
the differences are not nearly so pronounced (Table 99). These findings 
support the contention that a full understanding of the problems of South¬ 
ern landlords and tenants is impossible without an adequate understanding 
of race relations in the South. 


Operating Credit 

To what extent do landlords control the operating credit of their 
tenants? Croppers report that their landlords have control over operating 
credit more frequently than do members of other tenure classes. The dif¬ 
ferences between croppers and renters in this respect, however, are much 
greater in the South than in the North, Close to 5 percent of Northern 
croppers (and renters as well) report landlord control over credit. South¬ 
ern white croppers, on the other hand, report this to be the case in 56 
percent of the cases, while the same is true regarding 85 percent of 
colored croppers, A marked difference between white and Negro renters in 
the South appears in this respect, for only 12 percent of white renters 
and practically 50 percent of colored renters report landlord control over 
operating credit. In other words, this type of control is exerted by the 
landlord four times as often when the renter is colored as when he is 
white. No Northern laborers report landlord control over operating cred¬ 
it, but such control is reported by 17 percent of Southern white and 28 
percent of colored laborers. 

Landlords' information regarding the frequency with which they con¬ 
trol operating credit is in general consistent with the foregoing, but 
there is a tendency among Southern farmers for landlords to report such 
control less frequently than do tenants, whereas in the North the reverse 
is the case. Apparent discrepancies are probably due to the fact that 
landlords' information refers to selected classes of tenants. 

What bearing has kinship to landlord on this matter? Among white 
farmers, both Northern and Southern, the related tenant more frequently 
than the unrelated tenant reports that his landlord has control over 
operating credit. Among Negro farmers, on the other hand, there is a 
slight tendency in the opposite direction. But these differences seem to 
be much less significant than the differences associated with tenure 
classes and with the sample populations (Table 100). 

Inasmuch as the proportion of Northern farmers reporting landlord 
control over operating credit is small, the comparison that follows will 
be made only with respect to Southern farmers. Among farmers repoiting 
that landlords control operating credit, what proportions state that the 
landlord also "stands good" for the tenant's debts? Infoimation on this 
topic would seem to constitute a necessary reverse side of the picture of 
landlord-tenant relations, the obverse of which, often thought to be the 
whole, consists of landlord domination. Rights are usually accompanied by 
duties, however, and every unit of authority or contuol tends to carry 
with it a corresponding unit of responsibility. 



172 - 


Table 100.- Percentages of non-owners reporting landlord to have 
control over non-owners' operating credit 


Sample population 
and tenure status 

; Total number 
: reporting 

: Percentages reporting 

:landlord control of credit 

Northern; 

Related to landlord 

86 

6 

Unrelated to landlord 

246 

2 

Southern white: 

Related to landlord 

104 

32 

Unrelated to landlord 

391 

26 

Negro; 

Related to landlord 

38 

61 

Unrelated to landlord 

676 

66 


Table 101.- Percentages of Southern landlords reported by landlords, 
renters, croppers, and laborers as having control over non-owners' 
operating credit who stand good for non-owners' debts 

:Total 

reporting credit:Percentages of these who 

Tenure and kinship : control by 

landlord : stand good for debts 

Southern white 



By tenure of informant: 



Landlords 

104 

62 

Renters 

33 

54 

Croppers 

94 

54 

Laborers 

9 

55 

By kinship to landlord: 



Related 

33 

58 

Unrelated 

103 

53 

Negro 



By tenure of informant: 



Landlords 

15 

73 

Renters 

125 

69 

Croppers 

319 

79 

Laborers 

25 

60 

By kinship to landlord: 



Related 

23 

78 

Unrelated 

446 

75 












- 173 - 


Here, then, is some evidence of the paternalistic side of the land¬ 
lord-tenant relationship in the South, an aspect which is insignificant in 
the Noith because the authority of landlord over tenant, of which it is a 
counteipart, is there lacking. Not less than one—half the farmers in any 
Southern tenure class, white or colored, who report the landlord to have 
control over tenants' operating credit also say that he stands good for 
tenants' debts. This proportion is lowest among white non-owners, higher 
among white landlords, and highest among Negro croppers, among whom the 
proportion acknowledging such landlord "backing" rises to nearly four out 
of five (79 percent). It is well to keep in mind this phase of Southern 
landlord—tenant relations, for the pattern of obligations often assumed by 
the landlord, deriving largely from historic antecedents, is likely to be 
overlooked (Table 101). 

Just a word may be said about kinship to landlord before leaving 
this topic. About a third again as many white, and a half again as many 
Negro, related as unrelated non-owners report such landlord backing 

(Table 101). 


Where Will the Tenant be Farming Next Year ? 

One final topic remains to be discussed. It involves a question 
which helps to account for the relative mobility shown by the several 
tenure classes, and also throws further light on landlord-tenant relation¬ 
ships. The question asked our non-owning informants was this: "Do you 
intend to remain on this farm next year?" If the farmer responded with a 
definite "Yes" or "No," he was asked "Why" or "Why not?" 

Beginning with Northern non-owners, we find that less than 10 per¬ 
cent of the renters, 13 percent of the laborers, but none of the croppers 
say they do not intend to stay on the present farm next year. Among 
Southern white non-owners the proportion in each tenure class intending 
not to stay is larger than in the corresponding tenure class among North¬ 
ern farmers. The proportions range between 16 and 21 percent, increasing 
from renters through croppers to laborers, which tenure class contains the 
largest proportion intending to move next year. Among Negro farmers, on 
the other hand, sharp differences appear between the tenure classes. The 
proportion of laborers anticipating moves far exceeds that of any other 
tenure class in any sample population, and renters report a proportion 
even lower than that of Southern white renters. In fact, among Negro non- 
owners, the proportions intending not to remain on the present farm for 
the following year are in the ratio of 1 among renters, 2 among croppers, 
and 3 among laborers. Thus we may say that, with the exception of North¬ 
ern croppers, though few seem to be more stable than Northern renters, 
there is an increasing proportion of those who do not intend to remain 
next year, on their present farm as we go from the upper to the lower ten¬ 
ure classes among non-owning farmers. This is true in each sample popu¬ 
lation. Tenure differences in this respect, however, are by far most 
pronounced among Negroes (Table 102). 



Table 102.- Percentages of non-owners who report that they do not 
intend to stay on present farm next year 


Tenure and 

status 

: Total number : 
of cases ; 

Percentages 
expecting 
to move 

Northern 

By tenure: 

Renters 


247 

9 

Croppers 


16 

— 

Laborers 


69 

13 

By kinship to 
Related 

landlord: 

86 

8 

Unrelated 


246 

26 

Southern white 

By tenure: 
Renters 

• 

274 

16 

Croppers 


168 

18 

Laborers 


53 

21 

By kinship to 
Related 

landlord: 

104 

12 

Unrelated 


391 

23 

Negro 

By tenure: 

Renters 


253 

10 

Croppers 


372 

20 

Laborers 


89 

32 

By kinship to 
Related 

landlord: 

38 

8 

Unrelated 


676 

25 


What do we find with regard to related and unrelated non-owners? 
Large and consistent differences appear in each of the three sample popu¬ 
lations: related non-owners more frequently than the unrelated non-owners 
consistently intend to remain where they now are. The proportion of un¬ 
related non-owners who intend to remain on the present farm next year is 
practically 75 percent in each of the sample populations, while among re¬ 
lated non-owners the proportion rises to over 90 percent among Northern 
and Southern colored farmers, and only slightly below 90 percent among 
Southern white farmers. 26/ Thus we see in operation the stabilizing in¬ 
fluence of the strong bonds of kinship between landlord and tenant (Table 
102 ) . 


26/ These percentages represent simply the differences between 100 per¬ 
cent and the figures for those not intending to remain on present farm 
next year (Table 102). 











- 175 - 


Returning now to those non-owners who say they do not intend to 
remain on the present farm during the coming year, let us examine the 
explanations they give for their expected departure. Since the numbers 
of Northern non-owners who say they intend to move are small, we can 
hardly attach much significance to the relative frequencies with which 
various types of responses are given. But there is little difference 
between the proportion of renters who attribute their departure to pres¬ 
sure on the part of the landlord and the proportion of those who say that 
they themselves are dissatisfied with the present place and are therefore 
looKing for another. Northern croppers, on the other hand, imply land¬ 
lord influence to be more frequently responsible than their own determina¬ 
tion to move. 

Among Southern white farmers we find a different situation. The 
renter is much more likely to be forced to move by his landlord, appar¬ 
ently, than he is to decide for himself to make a shift. There are about 
three times as many cases of the former type as of the latter. Among 
Southern white laborers, on the other hand, the laborer himself much more 
often reports dissatisfaction with the present farm or working conditions 
and himself decides that he wants to move. Among croppers the proportions 
in both categories - landlord pressure on the one hand and non-owners' 
determination on the other - are similar. 

One further category of responses has been singled out as possess¬ 
ing interest and significance: these are the responses to the effect that 
the landlord is responsible for the informant's expecting to be elsewhere 
next year, and that unfairness on the part of the landlord is at least 
contributing to, if it is not actually causing, the anticipated move. 
Responses of this type among Southern white tenants (about one in twenty) 
are significant not so much because of their frequency as because of the 
fact that they are present at all. No such responses are given by North¬ 
ern informants. 

Among Negro farmers, on the other hand, this type of response is 
much more frequently present, relatively, than in the case of Southern 
white farmers and it carries weight because of the numbers of persons by 
whom it is given. One out of every ten Negro renters and one out of every 
five Negro croppers who say that they do not expect to be on the present 
farm next year give as their explanations their feeling that the landlord 
is unfair or unjust in his treatment of them. Indications of this dis¬ 
trustful attitude on the part of Negro non-owners toward their landlords 
have already been pointed out. The recurrence of the idea, if nothing 
else, would seem to force its consideration in any serious attempt at 
understanding the status of the colored tenant, his relations to his 
landlord, his desire to shift about, and possibly his readiness, given 
industrial opportunities, to abandon the Southern farm for the Southern 
city, or even for the North. 


- 176 - 


This type of response is emphasized, accordingly, for it seems to 
give more insight than do the more numerous responses indicating land¬ 
lord responsibility for non-owner's departure but involving no specified 
unfairness. We remember that it is among renters that landlords are most 
frequently reported as being responsible for the contemplated move. In 
fact, apparently a colored renter never says that he intends to move be¬ 
cause he himself is dissatisfied with the farm, because it is too small in 
size, too poor, or in any other way unsatisfactory (Table 103), 


Table 103.- Non-owners not intending to stay on present farm next 
year who report specified reasons for not staying 


Sample population: 

Landlord forces departure 

:Non-owner not 

and : 

tenure status : 

• 

Total 1/ : 

No unfairness 
specified 

: Unfairness 
: specified 

satisfied with 
: present farm 

Northern: 

Renters 

23 

30 

— 

26 

Croppers 

— 

— 

— 

— 

Laborers 

9 

56 

— 

— 

Southern white: 

Renters 

43 

49 

5 

16 

Croppers 

30 

37 

3 

33 

Laborers 

11 

18 

— 

54 

Negro: 

Renters 

26 

31 

11 

— 

Croppers 

73 

25 

19 

14 

Laborers 

28 

11 

— 

11 


1/ Percentages for those reporting other reasons, not shown. 


By way of summary we may say, then, regarding these responses of 
non-owners who do not expect to remain next year in their present loca¬ 
tions, that landlord pressure for departure falls most heavily on those 
tenure classes in the South that seem to be most independent. More im¬ 
portant, however, may be the fact that unfairness on the part of the 
landlord as a cause of non-owners' expected shifting to a new place is 
found most frequently among colored tenants, less often among Southern 
white tenants, and is mentioned not at all by tenants in the North. 







- 177 - 


Chapter VI 

MOVES AND MIGRATIONS: HOW OFTEN AND HOW FAR? 27/ 

Stability or Mobility 

The highways of this country in recent years have carried more and 
more families on the move. The tourist camp and its more youthful as¬ 
sociate, the automobile trailer, seem to have come to stay. But long be¬ 
fore either of these appeared, "moving day" in farming areas brought 
out large numbers of farm families. Moving day, like the tourist camp and 
the trailer, seems to be an American institution. Older countries gen¬ 
erally display less of this incessant shifting about induced by the hope 
of bettering one's circumstances. Families tend more largely to live in 
the same houses year after year, and generation after generation, with 
little though of seeking other locations. Surplus mature offspring may 
look for openings elsewhere, probably in the nearest city, but the family 
tends to stay firmly rooted. The American farmer, on the other hand, at 
least the non-owning farmer, seems to have one eye perpetually cocked and 
one ear always listening for rumors of greener pastures, of more fertile 
soils, of more to be had for less effort in another place. 

It is not the purpose of this discussion to praise or to blame 
either the pattern of life which leads a man to spend his declining years 
in the spot where he first saw the light of day or the pattern which keeps 
him more or less constantly on the move or prepared to move. Neither is 
completely good nor completely bad, for both the nomadic and stable types 
of existence offer certain basic satisfactions. Our present objective is 
to determine whether the various tenure classes are characterized more by 
the one or the other mode of existence, and to what degree the tenure- 
class characteristics persist. We also wish to know whether these charac¬ 
teristics are similar or different in the three sample populations under 
consideration, It seems more important to try to understand why the 


27/ It may be well to point out the different meanings here attached to 
the two terms, "moves" and "migrations," representing two types of changes 
of residence. The move begins in scope with the simple shift from one 
farm to the next, and includes other short distance shifts. The migra¬ 
tion, on the other hand, begins with shifts from one hemisphere to another 
hemisphere, from one country to another country, and irom one laige area 
or section of the country to another. A move shades into a migration as 
it involves a longer distance, as it includes a shift from one large po¬ 
litical division to another of the same rank; the migration, in contrast, 
begins with the long-distance movement and shades into the move as it in¬ 
volves shorter and shorter distances. Both types of shifting aie of im¬ 
portance, but for most American farmers today what is here called a "move' 
is by far the more important type of phenomenon. 




- 178 - 


farmers in our country move from place to place so frequently, and to see 
if we can find out what they prefer in the way of a location. 

Before turning to the findings, let us look briefly at the factors 
that seem to promote mobility in the farm population. One element, 
certainly, is the relentless, driving desire for improvement of one's 
lot and for placing one's children in a position of relative advancement. 
There seems to be an incurable optimism regarding what the next place may 
offer. "Grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence" 
is an old rural saying. 

To understand fully this type of attitude and its significance among 
farmers today, it would probably be necessary to scan the entire history 
of the country, for the ancestors of these very farmers undertook, in 
their day, much greater migrations with at least partly the same motiva¬ 
tion. This traditional freedom of the individual or the family to come 
and go as it thinks best in searching for a place that seems to offer the 
most favorable prospects naturally inhibits the enactment of laws that 
might unduly restrict such movement. Under these circumstances it would 
seem that the better the means of transportation and the more efficient 
the means of communication, the greater would be the possibilities for 
satisfying these wishes for new and better opportunities and, hence, the 
greater would be the amount of movement, 

But there are various influences that make for a stabilization of 
population in space. Friends, kinsfolk, cumbersome or immovable pos¬ 
sessions, lack of knowledge of greater opportunities elsewere, and an 
adequate degree of satisfaction with present conditions or potential¬ 
ities, all tend to restrict the farmer's movement. From this point of 
view, it may well be that the improvement of means of transportation and 
communication serve to make the farmer better satisfied with his present 
lot and hence less anxious to move. 

The fact that this country is constantly becoming older, however, 
is probably of more basic general importance than any other stabilizing 
factor. It seems probable that there will be less and less of violent 
shifting and moving about from one part of the country to another as the 
most remote of the fertile valleys and plains are filled up. The pos¬ 
sibility of subduing vast untamed agricultural areas no longer exists. 
To be a pioneer today or to follow the modern frontier one probably 
should go to South America. 

The fact that a father and possibly a grandfather once lived on a 
place seems even more reason why a son should remain there today. But 
this line of argument, it is recognized, does not hold good in the case of 
the non-owning farmer who, although not yet in the majority so far as the 
entire rural population is concerned, is becoming proportionately more 
numerous. The only factors that may promote stability for the landless 
farmer are those that make it more attractive for him to stay on his 
present location than to move elsewhere. And there seems to be too much 


- 179 - 


of the gambler in many a non-owning farmer for him to be willing to stay 
permanently in a situation whose limitations he already knows too well. 

Lifetime Patterns of Moving 

Most farmers are born on the farm. The overwhelming proportion of 
farmers in each of the three sample populations, regardless of tenure 
class, report their birthplaces to have been on the farms. This prepon¬ 
derance is greater in the South than in the North and reaches a maximum 
among colored farmers in the South. In this last group practically no 
tenure differences appear with respect to the proportions of present farm¬ 
ers who report that they were born on the farm. In the North, however, 
one out of every ten laborers was not born on a farm. This is true of 
somewhat smaller proportions likewise of Northern renters and owners. 
Among Southern white farmers, again, there are more laborers than members 
of any other tenure class who were born off the farm, but of the laborers 
only one in twenty reports a non-farm birthplace. Among Negro farmers 
there are slightly more owners than members in any other tenure class who 
report non-farm birth, but even among these the proportion is insig¬ 
nificant, being less than 3 percent of all Negro owners (Table 104). 

What is the situation with respect to nativity of unrelated as com¬ 
pared with related non-owners? In each sample population, as would be ex¬ 
pected, there are more unrelated non-owners who report being born off the 
farm than related non-owners. The proportion is again largest among North 
ern farmers and smallest among colored farmers. In general we may say 
that the current of movement from city to farm is practically insig¬ 
nificant with the exception of a trickle of laborers in the North who, al¬ 
though not born on farms, are now living and working there. Although 
there is much shifting back and forth from country to city and city to 
country, depending chiefly upon the relative economic advantages at a 
particular time, this movement evidently is primarily one of farm-born 
people who move to the city when times are good and back to the country 
when times there are bad. City-born people, on the other hand, seem to 
contribute only an insignificant proportion of the total farm population 
at any one time. 

We have just seen that farm-born people largely make up the farm 
population. This does not mean, obviously, that farm people stay on the 
farms on which they are born. Tenure differences with respect to the de¬ 
gree of stability are present, however, in each sample population and re¬ 
present one of the most significant differences to be found between the 
tenure classes. 

The first measure of this lifetime pattern of movement to be pre¬ 
sented involves a comparison of the proportions of farmers who today re¬ 
port that they are living in the same county in which they weie born; in 
the same State, but not the same county; in a State adjoining that in 
which they were born; in some State other than an adjoining State; and 
finally, those who are now living in a country other than that in which 




- 180 - 


Table 104.- Percentages of farmers classified by type of birthplace 
and type' of present residence (farm or non-farm) 1/ 


• 

f 

Born 

on a farm : 

Born on 

a non-farm place 

Item : 

Present residence : 

Present residence 

• 

Farm 

: Non-farm : 

Farm 

; Non-farm 

Northern 





By tenure: 

Owners 

85.4 

5.1 

7.6 

0.5 

Tenants 

90.9 

— 

8.7 

— 

Laborers 

By kinship to 

78.3 

8.7 

11.6 

1.4 

landlord: 

Related 

95.3 

— 

4.6 

— 

Unrelated 

85.8 

2.4 

11.0 

.4 

Southern white 

By tenure: 

Owners 

94.0 

3.0 

1.8 

.3 

Renters 

96.7 

.7 

2.2 

— 

Croppers 

93.4 

— 

4.8 

— 

Laborers 

94.5 

— 

5.7 

— 

By kinship to 
landlord: 

Related 

97.1 

— 

2.8 


Unrelated 

94.9 

.5 

3.6 

— 

Negro 

By tenure: 

Owners 

95.3 

1.7 

2.3 

— 

Renters 

98.8 

— 

.8 


Croppers 

98.1 

- 

.8 

_ 

Laborers 

98.9 

— 

1.1 


By kinship to 
landlord: 

Related 

100.0 

— 



Unrelated 

98.4 

— 

.9 

- 

1/ Omitting cases 

for which 

type of birthplace 

was not 

reported. 


they were born. In each sample population more owners are now living in 
the county of their birth, relatively, than are the members of any other 
tenure class. The differences between owners and tenants in the North and 
between Negro owners and renters in the South are slight. There are fewer 
laborers in each sample population who report they are now living in the 
same county in which they were born than there are members of any other 
tenure class. Among Southern whites, renters apparently have shifted 
about somewhat more than croppers, while among Negroes, using this same 
criterion, the reverse is true. Regardless of tenure class, a larger 
proportion of farmers fall in this category than in any other. 










181 


PERCENT 



PERCENT- 


80 


60.8 : 53.6 i 19.9 : 26.8 : 8.7 i 13.7 i 10.8 | 6.0 

48.7 30 2 21.8 35.8 19.7 24.5 9.8 7.5 


0.5 i 0.0 
0.0 0.Q 


40 


20 




67.2: 57.0 i 25.0 i 33.9 : 
66.4 48.3 26.9 44.9 


5.5 • 7.8 i 2.3 i 1.3 i 0.0 ; 0.0 
4.8 4.5 2.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 


SAME 

COUNTY 


SAME 

STATE 


ADJOINING 

STATE 


OTHER 

STATE 


OTHER 

COUNTRY 


Owners 


Renters 


Croppers 


Fd Laborers 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 


NEG. 32663 


BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 


jre 25,- Percentages of farmers whose present place of residence as 

COMPARED WITH PLACE OF BIRTH IS SAME COUNTY, OTHER COUNTY IN 

same State, adjoining State, other State, or other country. 


























































































































- 182 - 


There is one exception to this generalization: more white Southern 
farm laborers are living in some county other than their native county, 
but have remained in the same State, than have remained in the county of 
their birth. This second category, with the exception just noted, is 
second in importance, regardless of tenure class, in each of the sample 
populations. Furthermore, the order among the tenure classes is prac¬ 
tically the reverse of that found in the first category. 

In other words, there are more farm laborers in each sample popu¬ 
lation who report that they live in the same State as that in which they 
were born, but not the same county, than members of any other tenure 
class. There are few such croppers, still fewer renters, and fewest own¬ 
ers. These two categories account for the lifetime migration of the large 
majority of farmers, regardless of tenure class in each sample population, 
but the contrast is most pronounced in the case of colored farmers. 

Among white farmers, both North and South, small fractions of the 
members of each tenure class report that they live in a State adjoining 
that in which they were born. This is true of more laborers than of 
members of other tenure classes, and is true of fewest owners. Southern 
white renters are more numerous in this category than are Southern white 
croppers but, nevertheless, they are not so frequent as white laborers. 

In the next category, that including those farmers now living in 
a State other than a State adjoining that of birth, the proportions of 
owners become relatively more important. Among Southern whites, in fact, 
there are more owners than members of other tenure classes reporting 
such extensive moves. In the North there are more such laborers, but the 
difference between the proportion of laborers and that of owners is very 
small. Among Negro farmers, owners again, though by a very slight margin, 
exceed the proportion of laborers reporting such moves. 

Those reporting country of birth to be other than the United States 
are very few, but again it is owners who most frequently report foreign 
birth and thus, most extensive migration. As was previously pointed out. 
this category is significant only in the North and is non-existent among 
Negroes. In summary it may be said that short-distance lifetime move¬ 
ments characterize the migration of most farmers. This stability is great¬ 
est in the case of owners, least in the case of laborers, and is inter¬ 
mediate in the case of the other tenure classes, differences between owners 
and tenants in the North and between owners and renters among Negroes, 
however, being insignificant (Fig. 25). 

Duration of Present Farm Occupancy 

Turning now from a consideration of the results of a lifetime's 
moving and shifting about, let us see what differences exist between 
the tenure classes with respect to number of years they report having 
occupied the farm on which they now live. Classifying the responses 
into four categories of 5 years each (under 5 years, 5-9 years. 10-14 
years, and 15-19 years), into one of 10 years (20-29 years), and into 



183 - 


a final indeterminate category (30 years and over), we discover that 
the percentages of farmers in the lower tenure classes are found rather 
consistently in the categories showing shorter duration of farm occupancy, 
while the proportions of owners increase as we proceed to the categories 
showing longer duration of farm occupancy. 

Among Northern farmers the proportions of owners rise consistently 
as we go from the categories of shorter duration to those of longest 
duration, practically one-third of all Northern owners reporting that they 
have lived on the present farm 30 years or over, and one-fourth reporting 
residence of 20 to 29 years on present farm. Northern tenants, on the 
other hand, are most numerous in the category showing duration of farm 
occupancy to be less than 5 years and decline consistently as the number 
of years of farm occupancy increases. The same is true of Northern 
laborers, although the proportion in the shortest duration categories 
is far larger and drops off much more abruptly as we increase the length 
of time involved. 

Among white farmers in the South we find the same general situa¬ 
tion, but the non-owning tenure classes show much more similarity with 
respect to duration of farm occupancy than is true either of Northern 
non-owners or of Negro non-owners. Around 50 percent of white renters, 
croppers, and laborers report having lived on their present farm less than 
5 years. This proportion is exceeded only by Negro and Northern laborers. 
Among Southern white owners, as in the North, nearly one-third report 
having lived on present farm 30 years or more. 

Among Negro owners, almost as large a propotion have lived on 
their present farm 30 years and over as were found in the cases of 
white owners. Furthermore, there are slightly more owners in the 5-9 
year and 10-14 year categories than are found in the 15-19 year category. 
The same is true among Southern white owners. This fact is to be con¬ 
trasted with the fact that there are more Northern owners in the 15-19 
year category than in any of the others representing duration of occupancy 
by 5-year periods. In other words, it would appear that if the com¬ 
parison were to have been continued by 5—year class intervals, instead 
of class intervals of larger magnitudes, that the largest proportion of 
Northern owners would be found in a duration—of—farm—occupancy category 
showing longer residence than the one in which most Southern owners would 
be found (Table 105) . 

What is the influence of kinship to landlord with respect to du¬ 
ration of farm occupancy? Among Northern farmers we find considerably 
more unrelated non-owners in the periods of shortesx duration Oi farm 
occupancy than related non—owners. Related non—owners, on the othei nand, 
exceed the unrelated in the categories showing residence to be 15 to 19 
years or longer. Among Southern farmers, both white and colored, the 
preponderance of related over unrelated non—owners begins with the rex t to 
the shortest category of duration of farm occupancy. In other words, the 


- 184 - 


Table 105.- Percentages of farmers reporting duration of farm occupancy 1/ 




: 

Number of years 



Item 

: Under 

: 5 

: 5 - 9 : 10 - 14 : 15 - 19 : 

: 30 and 
20-29 : over 


Northern 


By tenure: 


Owners 

8 

10 

11 

15 

25 

31 

Tenants 

39 

32 

11 

9 

6 

4 

Laborers 

70 

26 

3 

1 

— 

— 

By kinship to 







landlord: 







Related 

36 

27 

7 

9 

12 

10 

Unrelated 

48 

33 

10 

6 

2 

1 

Southern white 







By tenure: 







Owners 

11 

13 

14 

11 

20 

31 

Renters 

48 

26 

10 

5 

6 

4 

Croppers 

52 

26 

11 

6 

4 

1 

Laborers 

57 

23 

13 

6 

2 

— 

By kinship to 







landlord: 







Related 

31 

30 

13 

12 

9 

5 

Unrelated 

55 

25 

10 

4 

4 

2 

Negro 







By tenure: 







Owners 

8 

15 

16 

13 

21 

27 

Renters 

30 

27 

19 

12 

8 

5 

Croppers 

47 

32 

9 

5 

5 

2 

Laborers 

64 

17 

9 

6 

1 

3 

By kinship to 







landlord: 







Related 

29 

34 

16 

16 

5 


Unrelated 

43 

28 

13 

7 

6 

3 

1/ See Appendix, p. 251, 

for 

tenure class 

totals and 

kinship 

category 

totals by sample 

population 






relative excess 

of unrelated over related 

non-owners 

in the 

category 

"under 5 years" 

is greater 

than 

is found in 

the North. 

and is 

greatest 


among Southern whites. 

One further point is to be noted. Among white related non-owners 
the largest proportion in any category consists of those showing shortest 
duration of farm occupancy (under 5 years), whereas among colored related 
non-owners the largest proportion is found in the next longer category of 
duration of farm occupancy (5 to 9 years). In other words, colored related 











185 - 


non-owners appear to be the most stable non-owning tenure class, regard¬ 
less of sample population. 

If the comparative youth of the related non-owning tenure classes 
among Negroes is kept in mind (Table 69, p.107), it will be seen that this 
conclusion is supported by the figures for median years of duration of 
present farm occupancy, which are as follows: related renters, Negro, 
8.9, Northern, 8.0, Southern white, 6.9; related croppers. Northern, 
10.2, Southern white, 8.2, Negro, 6.2; related laborers, Negro, 10.2, 
Southern white, 8.8, Northern, 4.5. 

It is true that we have but few of these cases, but the implica¬ 
tions are clear: the relative advantage of staying close to one’s kins¬ 
folk in the case of non-owners renting from relatives is greater in the 
case of Negroes than in the case of whites. A landlord-tenant relation¬ 
ship in which white non-owners rent from colored landlords is generally so 
inconceivable that the implications of the customary type of bi-racial 
relationship are lightly passed over by most white people. Accordingly 
it is significant to find that the Negro non-owner renting from a member 
of the same race tends to remain in that same location more persistently 
than do white non-owners renting from members of their own race, and in 
addition, from kinsfolk. 

Distance Covered in Last Reported Move 

Having seen how long farmers in the various tenure classes have 
lived on the places they now call home, our next question is: How far 
did they move when they came here? Before considering the proportions 
having moved various distances, however, it is important to note first 
the proportions who report never having moved in the course cf their 
farming experience. 

In each sample population far more owners than members of other 
tenure classes report never having moved. One-third of Southern white 
owners, one-fourth of Negro owners and one-fifth of Northern owners have 
always lived on the place they now occupy. About 17 percent of Negro 
renters and farm laborers, who, of course, are younger and lo 1 " whom, 
therefore, this fact is less significant, report never having moved. 
Among Northern non-owners, tenants as well as farm laborers, about 14 
percent report the same. This is true of about 10 percent of the Southern 
white renters and croppers, and about 9 percent of the Negro cioppeis. 
Only 2 percent of the Southern white laborers, however, are now living on 
the same place where they began their farming experience. ihis last 
category is clearly the least stable tenure class in any of the sample 
populations, in this respect being very different from farm laborers both 
among Negroes and among those in the North. 

The influence of kinship in this matter is self-evident.. a di¬ 
vision of non-owners into related and unrelated groups shows the former 



186 


Table 106 — Percentages of farmers who report never having moved 


Tenure s 

Total number 

of cases 

• 

• 

: 

Percent who have 

never moved- 

Northern 

By tenure: 

Owners 

355 


21 

Tenants 

263 


14 

l4 

33 

Laborers 

By kinship to 
landlord: 

Related 

69 

86 


Unrelated 

246 


8 

Southern white 

By tenure: 

Owners 

398 


32 

Renters 

275 


10 

Croppers 

168 


10 

Laborers 

53 


2 

By kinship to 
landlord: 

Related 

105 


27 

Unrelated 

391 


5 

Negro 

By tenure: 

Owners 

128 


24 

Renters 

253 


17 

Croppers 

372 


9 

Laborers 

89 


17 

By kinship to 
landlord: 

Related 

38 


45 

Unrelated 

676 


11 


Table 107 — 

Percentages of 

farmers whose last 

move was 

specified number of miles 

: 

Total : 


Percent who moved 



Tenure and : 

number 


Number of miles 



kinshin : 

of cases : 

Under *5 : 

*5-24 

: 25 - qq 

: 

100 and over 

Northern 







By tenure: 

# Owners 

355 

44 

23 

5 


6 

Tenants 

263 

42 

34 

7 


3 

Laborers 

By kinship to 

69 

33 

38 

7 


6 

landlord: 







Related 

86 

37 

20 

9 



Unrelated 

246 

41 

40 

6 


4 

Southern white 







By tenure: 







Owners 

398 

35 

17 

5 


9 

Renters 

275 

47 

2b 

6 


7 

Croppers 

168 

44 

29 

10 


4 

Laborers 

By kinship to 

53 

36 

13 

26 


22 

landlord: 







Related 

105 

43 

16 

5 


8 

Unrelated 

391 

45 

29 

2 


8 

Negro 







By tenure: 







Owners 

128 

50 

17 

6 


2 

Renters 

253 

56 

16 

4 


4 

Croppers 

372 

60 

24 

4 


2 

Laborers 

By kinship to 

89 

52 

22 

8 


1 

landlord: 







Related 

38 

42 

5 

5 



Unrelated 

676 

59 

22 

4 


3 



















- 187 - 


group to be overwhelmingly more stable than the latter. Forty-five per¬ 
cent of Negro non-owners, 33 percent of Northern, and 27 percent of 
Southern white non-owners renting from kinsfolk have never moved in the 
course of their farming experience, This is true of about one out of 
ten unrelated Negro non-owners, about one out of thirteen Northern, and 
about one out of twenty Southern white unrelated non-owners (Table 106). 

Keeping these differences in mind we may now turn to the con¬ 
sideration of the relative frequency of moves of different distances 
made by members of the various tenure classes. We already have some 
inkling of the relative preponderance of short moves among all farmers, 
and especially among colored farmers. With the exception of farm la¬ 
borers in the North, more members of every tenure class in each sample 
population covered less than 5 miles in the course of their last move. 
Among Northern farm laborers the distance involved is more frequently 
from 5 to 24 miles. This second distance category is second in im¬ 
portance in all tenure classes with the excepiton of Southern white farm 
laborers. More members of this tenure class report having moved between 
25 and 99, or 100 miles and over, than report having moved between 5 and 
24 miles. In this tenure class only are there considerable proportions 
of individuals for whom the last reported move involves distances of 25 
miles or over; thus again is emphasized the migratoriness of the Southern 
white farm laborer. 

Unrelated non-owners move various distances more frequently than 
do related non-owners. This is due to the fact that larger proportions 
of the related non-owners have moved not at all. In each sample popu¬ 
lation moves of over 5 miles are most numerous, with those ox 5 to 24 
miles next most numerous. Unrelated Northern non-owners, however, are 
more likely to move longer distances than are unrelated Negro non-owners 
(Table 107). 


Measures of Frequency and Distance 

In this final section we shall consider tenure differences with 
respect to the frequency of moving and the distances involved. The first 
question is, how do the members of the various tenure classes compare 
with respect to the total number of times they have moved? In each 
sample population the proportion of owners decreases as the total number 
of moves involved increases. In each sample population there are rela¬ 
tively more members of the non-owning classes who report having moved 5 
times or any number over 5 than is true in the case of owners. Among 
these non—owning classes in the South the largest proportion reporting 
9 or more moves is to be found among croppers, whereas in the North this 
is true of laborers. The largest proportions of white Southern renters, 
croppers, and laborers fall in the category of 2 moves, but among Negro 
' farmers there are slightly more who report 3 moves than those who report 
any other number (Table 108). 



- 188 - 


Table 108 — 

Percentages of 

farmers 

who report 

having moved specified number 

of 

times 


• 

• 



Percentage moving specific number of times 




Item : 

0 : 

l 

: Z 

• 1 : 

4 

:5_S 

6 : 

L 

S L 

q 

Northern 

By tenure: 

Owners 

21 

19 

21 

13 

9 

7 

3 

2 

1 

3 

Tenants 

14 

13 

15 

15 

12 

6 • 

4 

4 

6 

11 

Laborers 

14 

9 

4 

16 

12 

10 

7 

4 

9 

14 

By kinship to 
landlord: 

Related 

33 

lb 

19 

15 

9 

1 

- 

1 

3 

2 

Unrelated 

8 

10 

11 

15 

13 

8 

7 * 

5 

8 

15 

Southern white 

By tenure: 

Owners 

32 

28 

17 

9 

7 

2 

1 

1 

- 

2 

Renters 

11 

13 

16 

13 

12 

8 

5 

b 

3 

8 

Croppers 

9 

18 

22 

11 

9 

9 

7 

2 

2 

9 

Laborers 

2 

23 

26 

17 

4 

9 

4 

4 

6 

6 

By kinship to 
landlord: 

Related 

27 

24 

22 

7 

5 

3 

7 

2 

2 

3 

Unrelated 

5 

16 

19 

14 

12 

10 

5 

b 

3 

10 

Negro 

By tenure: 

Owners 

12 

l 6 

26 

18 

18 

5 

2 

1 

l 

l 

Renters 

11 

14 

15 

18 

16 

11 

6 

4 

3 

2 

Croppers 

6 

16 

15 

16 

11 

10 

8 

5 

4 

9 

Laborers 

10 

19 

23 

12 

8 

3 

8 

7 

2 

8 

By kinship to 
landlord: 

Related 

37 

34 

13 

10 

3 

3 


- 

— 

- 

Unrelated 

7 

15 

16 

17 

13 

10 

8 

5 

3 

7 


Table 109— Percentages of 

farmers who 

report having moved, 

by total 

distance 

moved, tenure and kinship 


:Total number: 


Percentage moving specific number of miles 


Item 

I of cases 

{Under 5: 

5-9 

: 10-24 : 

25-4q 

: 50-99 : 

100 -iqq 

: zoa-4qq : 

500 and over 

Northern 

By tenure: 

Owners 

277 

27 

12 

22 

13 

5 

2 

6 

13 

Tenants 

225 

11 

13 

20 

15 

16 

7 

5 

15 

Laborers 

58 

7 

5 

10 

19 

7 

12 

19 

21 

By kinship to 
landlord: 

Related 

57 

19 

12 

23 

18 

12 

7 

4 

5 

Unrelated 

226 

8 

11 

16 

15 

14 

8 

9 

19 

Southern white 

By tenure: 

Owners 

267 

31 

14 

20 

11 

5 

4 

5 

10 

Renters 

241 

18 

10 

22 

12 

11 

6 

9 

13 

Croppers 

145 

16 

16 

20 

14 

10 

7 

10 

8 

Laborers 

52 

4 

14 

14 

14 

10 

14 

17 

15 

By kinship to 
landlord: 

Related 

75 

36 

15 

17 

8 

8 

4 

1 

11 

Unrelated 

363 

11 

11 

21 

14 

11 

8 

12 

12 

Negro 

By tenure: 

Owners 

96 

26 

19 

28 

9 

6 

4 

4 

3 

Renters 

210 

29 

16 

19 

11 

6 

8 

7 

5 

Croppers 

338 

28 

16 

22 

10 

9 

7 

4 

h 

Laborers 

74 

23 

14 

24 

19 

5 

10 

3 

3 

By kinship to 
landlord: 

Related 

20 

60 

20 

5 

10 


5 



Unrelated 

602 

26 

16 

22 

12 

8 

8 

5 

4 















- 189 - 


In each sample population unrelated non-owners are relatively more 
frequent in the categories representing the larger number of moves, 
whereas related non-owners preponderate in those representing the smaller 
number of moves. These figures are suggestive of the frequency with 
which is enacted the poignant drama of the migrant, who, not finding 
what he wants in his present location, pulls up his stakes and moves on 
to a new location which he hopes will yield him a more abundant life. 

The second measure to be considered involves the total distance 
moved by farmers of various tenure classes. Here again the white laborer 
is outstanding for the distance he covers in the course of a short life¬ 
time. Negro farm laborers, on the other hand, either are characterized 
by no such powerful wanderlust, or if the spirit urges them they are not 
in a position to comply. Contrasted with the large total distances moved 
by white laborers are the small total distances reported by owners 
(Table 109). 

Related non-owners report small total distances moved more fre¬ 
quently than do unrelated non-owners, and conversely, unrelated exceed 
related non-owners in the categories involving large total distances 
moved. 


- 190 - 


Chapter VII 

CROUP LIFE IN THE COUNTRY; WHAT DOES IT CONSIST OF? 28/ 

By Wav of Introduction 

Many factors influence the appearance of what may broadly be 
termed a social group. If you think of Main Street back in the home 
town as it was on Saturday afternoons and evenings, you will recall the 
little knots or clusters of farmers leaning against store-fronts, stand¬ 
ing on street corners, talking about this and that; other clusters con¬ 
sisted of the farmers' wives who, holding the younger children, were 
likewise exchanging news and views. The whole formed a series of con¬ 
stantly changing group patterns. 

If you sauntered close to one of these little knots of farmers you 
probably heard frequent references to particular neighborhoods in the 
vicinity of the trade center. You may have noticed that kinship often 
drew these good people together. You were not so likely, for instance, to 
find farmers living 5 miles east of town regularly fraternizing with those 
who lived 5 miles west of town, unless some such tie as kinship, previous 
connection, or common membership in some organization was involved. These 
groups we have been thinking about, however, represent only one type of 
group life. Other types, more substantial, are probably more significant 
and to these we may now turn. 

All social groups may be divided into two types. The first are 
those to which one belongs or for which one becomes qualified through 
no particular choice or effort on his own part. These are the groups 
which are entered primarily by birth, such as the family, sex groups, 
race groups, and so on. There are other groups which one joins because 
of particular interests. Those of the latter type usually comprise a 
definite, limited membership, have officers, may require payment of 
membership fees, and probably have a set of rules and by-laws to govern 
procedure. 

The difference, in other words, is that some groupings are in¬ 
formally organized, having no hierarchy of officers and members, while 
other groups do have a clear-cut, organized structure. The first type 
we may call informally organized groups, and the latter formally organized 
groups. 

The formally organized group, as has been pointed out, is likely 
to be centered around some definite interest, which may have been crys- 


28/ All data in this chapter are based on the long-schedule sample 
populations. 








- 191 - 


tallized in a statement of purposes or objectives. At any rate, such 
a group usually does not concern itself v/ith a widespread range of activi¬ 
ties. ror example, one type of organization to which the farmer belongs, 
which we shall call the occupational type, may look after his interests as 
a good farmer. It may serve to focus interest in improving certain types 
of livestock or increasing the yield of a particular crop, or retarding 
the spread of some pest. Again, the farmer may belong to an organization 
that looks after his interest as a moral person, or as an immortal soul, 
concerned with eternal salvation; this we may call the religious type of 
organization. And so on we could go almost without end, if we wished to 
analyze the types of interests into small units. But other groups have, 
instead of a single unifying interest, many bonds of compelling common 
interest. 

Just as the cables which support the Golden Gate Bridge are in¬ 
comparably stronger when woven together than are the separate wires which 
go to make up these cables, so the ties which bind together a group having 
many things in common are much more significant, much stronger in influ¬ 
encing the behavior of a member of that group, than is the single bond of 
a special interest group. 

A third distinction may be made, that is, between groups of the 
type one sees clustering quickly around any accident or strange sight in 
the city, on the one hand, and those, on the other hand, which represent 
a deep and abiding sharing of interest. No stronger than cobwebs are the 
bonds of common interest which may briefly hold together in a compact 
surrounding group the people who happen to witness an accident. But a 
group that, for whatever reason, is held together through any considerable 
period of time tends to develop living, growing threads which constantly 
gain in strength and tenacity. 

The point of the foregoing discussion is this: the family is the 
elemental, the basic, the dominant group in the lives of most people; it 
is informally organized, although there may be a sort of hierarchy within 
the family; a multitude of interests binds its members together; and, 
finally, of all groups to which a person may belong, it probably most 
fully survives the test of time. For a number of reasons this primacy 
of the family seems to be more fundamental and more far-reaching among 
farmers than it is among city folk. 

It is possible that conditions on the farm may change so radically 
that farm families will become less divergent from urban families in 
this respect than they have been in the past, but even today, in spite 
of much urban influence on the country, we must first consider of all 
group life in the country, the group life of the family. 


- 192 - 


Informal Social Participation 

An important part of social life among farm families consists of 
"visiting" or chatting together with friends and relatives; less fre¬ 
quent, but no less significant, is entertaining and being entertained for 
meals. 


In obtaining information regarding these types of contact, the 
procedure was as follows: we asked for the names of the five families 
with whom the informant's family had the most contact. Then we inquired 
about the frequency during the past year that members of the informant's 
family visited each of these other families, were visited by members of 
these other families, entertained for meals, and were entertained for 
meals. 


Tenants report a higher average number of visits made, and visitors 
received, than do owners. A marked difference appears between Southern 
white laborers and laborers in the other two sample populations, however, 
for in the North and among Negroes they report a much smaller average 
number of contacts of this type than any other tenure class. Among 
Southern whites they report by far the largest figure. As was pointed 
out earlier, the average frequency of contacts of this type is consider¬ 
ably greater among Southern whites than among either Negroes or Northern 
farmers (Table 110). 

With respect to the exchanging of labor and tools, the most marked 
tenure-class differences are found among Negro farmers: owners report 
such exchange on the average practically four times as often as croppers, 
three times as often as laborers, and two times as often as renters. 
Among Southern whites the most frequent exchange of this type is found 
among croppers, which is just the opposite of the situation among Negroes. 
White laborers in the South report such exchange most rarely, renters 
somewhat more often, and owners with most nearly the frequency reported by 
croppers. In the North, again, laborers report such exchange much more 
rarely than the upper tenure classes. Contrasting with the South, how¬ 
ever, there is little difference between the frequencies reported by own¬ 
ers and tenants. 

If this sort of economic cooperation means anything at all, it is 
clear that the tenure classes in the three sample populations hold entire¬ 
ly different positions. The Negro owner is in a position both to extend 
and receive aid, and does so on the average more frequently than any other 
tenure class in a.ny of the sample populations. The white laborer in the 
South, on the other hand, is so little free in this respect, or else is 
so little cooperatively inclined, that he participates in such exchange 
less often than any other tenure class in any of the sample populations. 
The Northern laborer in comparison is by no means so far removed from 
that of the higher tenure classes living around him (Table 110). 





193 - 


Table 110.- Average number of times that specified types of inter-family 
contact are reported as having taken place during the past year 


• 

• 

Item : 

Owners 

• 

: Renters 

• 

; Croppers 

• 

• 

; Laborers 

Northern 

Visiting: 

Informant visited 

24.8 


26.5 1/ 

13.8 

Informant was 
visited 

21.2 


21.9 

7.0 

Exchanging meals: 
Informant was guest 

5.6 


6.5 

2.3 

Informant received 
guest 

6.1 


7.2 

4.2 

Exchanging tools and 
labor with friends 
or relatives 

5.4 


5.6 

2.2 

Southern white 

Visiting: 

Informant visited 

42.0 

43.6 

57.6 

70.4 

Informant was 
visited 

45.8 

42.4 

51.9 

67.0 

Exchanging meals: 
Informant was guest 

4.5 

4.9 

6.3 

3.5 

Informant received 
guest 

4.3 

5.2 

7.6 

10.8 

Exchanging tools and 
labor with friends 
or relatives 

2.3 

.8 

2.9 

.2 

Negro 

Visiting: 

Informant visited 

27.9 

34.3 

40.4 

22.3 

Informant was 
visited 

26.7 

31.3 

33.1 

18.3 

Exchanging meals: 
Informant was guest 

5.9 

6.8 

6.5 

2.6 

Informant received 
guest 

6.3 

6.3 

6.5 

2.9 

Exchanging tools and 
labor with friends 
or relatives 

6.0 

2.7 

1.6 

1.8 


1/ Figures for Northern croppers included with those for renters 








- 194 - 


Since, throughout this study, the influence of non-owners' kinship 
to landlord has been considered, let us now see the nature of this in¬ 
fluence with respect to informal social relations. Related non-owners in 
the North both visit, and are visited by, their acquaintainces more fre¬ 
quently than is the case with unrelated non-owners. The difference be¬ 
tween these categories of non-owners is more pronounced, however, in the 
matter of visiting others than in receiving visitors, the related group 
reporting the higher figure. 

Among Southern whites there is an entirely different situation. 
Unrelated non-owners report visiting and being visited with practically 
the same frequency. Related non-owners, on the other hand, report visit¬ 
ing their friends and relatives on the average much more frequently than 
they are visited. In fact, this difference is so great that families of 
unrelated non-owners receive friends and relatives even more frequently 
than do those of related non-owners. 

Regarding Negro farm families, conditions are more nearly comparable 
to those among Northern than among Southern whites: both related and un¬ 
related non-owners report making visits more often than they report being 
visited, but the former figure, and the disparity between the two, is 
much greater in the case of related non-owners (Table 111). 

Considering hospitality involving entertainment for meals, we find 
that the differences between related and unrelated non-owners in the North 
are reversed: unrelated non-owners both entertain and are entertained for 
meals much more frequently than related non-owners. The opposite is true 
regarding colored non-owners, for among Negroes related non-owners both 
entertain and are entertained for meals much more frequently than unre¬ 
lated non-owners. Furthermore, related non-owners are entertained about 
twice as often as they entertain, while among unrelated non-owners, as is 
true of both Negroes and whites, the figure for entertaining and being 
entertained at meals is practically the same. Among Southern white re¬ 
lated non-owners, as among Negroes, but not to so marked an extent, hos¬ 
pitality involving meals is accepted from others more frequently than it 
is extended. 

These differences between the relative frequencies that guest and 
host roles are played by related and non-related non-owners in North and 
South are possibly as significant as any we shall find: in the North the 
related non-owner more frequently acts as host for meals than he plays 
the part of guest, but in the South he is guest more frequently than he 
is host. 

We have already seen the predominance of kinsfolk among those with 
whom meals are exchanged, and, therefore, we may assume that this greater 
frequency of host or guest relationship to a large extent involves kins¬ 
folk. It would seem, therefore, that the relatives of non-owners in the 
North deem it an honor to be entertained by their non-owning kinsfolk, 


- 195 - 


Table 111.- Average number of times that specified types of inter-family 
contact took place among non-owners during past year 



Types of contact : Related to landlord : Unrelated to landlord 


Northern 


Number of families making 


inter-family contacts 

79 

289 

Visiting: 

Visited others 

29.0 

22.9 

Was visited by others 

20.2 

19.8 

Exchanging meals: 

Was host 

4.6 

6.1 

Was guest 

3.2 

6.6 

Exchanging labor and/or 
tools 

4.6 

5.9 

Southern white 

Number of families making 
inter-family contacts 

57 

287 

Visiting: 

Visited others 

52.1 

49.2 

Was visited by others 

41.0 

48.2 

Exchanging meals: 

Was host 

5.2 

5.1 

Was guest 

7.7 

6.1 

Exchanging labor and/or 
tools 

1.1 

1.6 

Negro 

Number of families making 
inter-family contacts 

35 

623 

Visiting: 

Visited others 

40.9 

35.7 

Was visited by others 

31.8 

30.4 

Exchanging meals: 

Was host 

8.7 

5.9 

Was guest 

15.7 

6.0 

Exchanging labor and/or 
tools 

5.0 

1.8 






196 - 


OWNERS 


NORTHERN 

TENANTS 


LABORERS 


ififS 



► 


Owners 


& 


Tenants 




Laborers 



Nonfarm 


SOUTHERN WHITE 


OWNERS 


RENTERS 


CROPPERS 





► 


Owners 




Renters 




Croppers 




NEGRO 

OWNERS RENTERS CROPPERS 





► 


Owners 




Renters 




Croppers 





o 


Not reported 


LABORERS 



Laborers 


o 


Nonfarm and 
not reported 


LABORERS 



Laborers 


P'v. Nonfarm and 
not reported 


NE6. 32765 


BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOttCS 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Figure 26 .- Percentage distribution by tenure of the families with v 

INFORMANTS* FAMILIES HAD MOST FREQUENT SOCIAL CONTACT, BY 

TENURE OF INFORMANT* 























































































































- 197 - 


whereas in the South it is the related non-owners who deem it an honor 
to be entertained by their relatives. 

These data suggest, at least, that the dependency relationship 
between related non-owners in the North and their relatives is in one 
direction, while in the South it is in the opposite direction. This 
hypothesis is also supported by the fact that in the South related renters 
and croppers among noth whites and Negroes are younger on the average than 
are unrelated renters and croppers. This age difference is also present 
in the North, but to a much slighter degree. 

To conclude this comparison of related and unrelated non-owners 
we may take up the topic of exchanging labor and tools. In the North 
it is the unrelated group who report the greater average frequency of 
such exchange. The same is true of Southern whites, but among Negroes 
such exchange is reported almost three times as often by related non- 
owners as by those who are not related. If, as has been suggested, the 
frequency of this type of contact may be regarded as in any way indicative 
of freedom to act independently, we may say definitely that kinship to 
landlord or employer proves to be an emancipating relationship in the case 
of Negro, but not in the case of white, farmers. 

The relationships between informal inter-family social participa¬ 
tion and the two further factors are next to be considered; first, the 
tenure class of the families involved; second, kinship or non-kinship to 
informants of the families named by informants. The influences of these 
factors are to be taken up from two points of view. In the first place, 
we want to see the relative frequency with which the families named by our 
informants (those with whom they have the most contact) fall into one 
category or another with respect to these factors. In the second place, 
we want to consider the average frequency of contact when the influences 
of the two factors are analyzed. In other words, we want to note first 
the proportion of all families mentioned by informants falling into one 
category or another; and, in the second place, we shall see how often 
contact takes place between informants' families and those they listed. 

In each sample population owners more often mention owners' fami¬ 
lies as those with whom they have the most contact than they do families 
in any other tenure class. The proportion of owners mentioned by owner 
informants is practically 50 percent in each sample population. The next 
largest proportion in each sample population is renters, who constitute 
27 percent of the families mentioned by owners in the North, 31 percent 
by Southern white, and 43 percent by colored owners. Laborers are men¬ 
tioned by owners in not more than 1 percent of all cases (Fig. 26) . 

Northern tenants and Southern renters mention families in the same 
tenure class more frequently than those in any other. Forty percent 
of the families named by Northern tenants are also tenants, while the pro¬ 
portion among Southern whites is 47 percent and among Negroes, 50 percent. 


- 198 - 


Among white families, both North and South, the tenure class mentioned 
next most frequently is that of owners; but among Negro families, renters 
mention croppers most frequently after owners. 29/ 

Families mentioned by Negro croppers in almost two-thirds of all 
cases are also croppers, whereas Southern white croppers mention families 
in the same tenure class in only 23 percent of all cases. More fre¬ 
quently than croppers they mention owners (38 percent), and also renters 
(30 percent). Negro croppers mention owners in only 13 percent and rent¬ 
ers in only 18 percent of all cases. 

Laborers in the North and among Southern whites mention renters' 
families most frequently, but Northern laborers mention owners relatively 
more frequently (27 percent) than do Southern white laborers (10 percent). 
Negro laborers mention croppers far more often than they name families in 
any other tenure class (55 percent). They mention other laborers' fami¬ 
lies relatively more often than do the members of any other tenure class 
in any of the same populations (18 percent). 

It may be pointed out, finally, that non-farm families are men¬ 
tioned with considerable frequency, regardless of tenure class, in the 
North, the proportion being 12 percent among owners, 18 percent among 
tenants, and 20 percent among laborers. In the South the highest pro¬ 
portion of non-farm families is mentioned by white owners (11 percent) 
and Negro owners (8 percent), the proportions being lower in all other 
tenure classes. In brief, we may say that in seven out of eleven com¬ 
parisons informants mention other families occupying the same tenure 
status with the greatest frequency. In the remaining four instances 
informants mention members of higher tenure classes with greater fre¬ 
quency than those of the same tenure class. These are Northern laborers, 
Southern white croppers and laborers, and colored laborers. It is pos¬ 
sible that one reason for these exceptions lies in the greater difficul¬ 
ties experienced by laborers in getting from place to place - in the in¬ 
adequacy, that is, of their transportation facilities (Fig. 26). 

Keeping in mind this background material, which in itself is of 
significance in showing the operation of tenure class as a factor for 
promoting contact within the class and as a barrier preventing contact 
across tenure class lines, we may take up now the analysis of the fre¬ 
quencies with which contacts of various types take place between the var¬ 
ious tenure class combinations. 


29/ Tenant families in the North as in many other instances throughout 
the study will be compared here with renter families in the South, both 
because croppers in the North are very few and because Northern croppers 
seem more comparable to renters. Northern as well as Southern, than to 
Northern laborers or Southern croppers or laborers. 





- 199 - 


The average frequency with which informants report visiting other 
families and being visited by other families, as was pointed out, is much 
greater among Southern whites than among either Negroes or Northern 
whites, but marked differences appear when Southern whites are separated 
into the several tenure classes. Southern white owners visit and are 
visited by non-farm families, on the average, more frequently than they 
visit or are visited by farm families of any tenure class. In view of the 
small number of instances when owners' families reported visiting labor¬ 
ers families, the high average frequency is thought to be misleading and 
is not considered so significant as the averages with respect to other ten¬ 
ure classes or to non-farm families. 

Furthermore, Southern white owner informants have relatively the 
smallest average frequency of contact of this type with other owners' 
families. Southern white tenants' families report visiting and being 
visited by owners and tenants with about the same average frequencies, 
these amounting to slightly under once a week throughout the year. The 
frequency with which tenants visit non-farm families is almost three 
times the average with which they are visited by non-farm families. In 
other words, the direction of the social current in this case seems to 
be from country to town or city. Southern white laborers report visiting 
and being visited by tenants, on the average, much more frequently than 
any other category (Table 112). 

Among Negro families, owners report an average frequency of visit¬ 
ing other owners and tenants in about the same amounts. The number of 
cases of owner contact with farm laborers and with non-farm families is 
so small that the averages may not be relied on. Negro owners' families, 
on the other hand, are visited by tenants considerably more often than 
they are visited by other owners. Negro tenants report visiting and being 
visited by other tenants more frequently than other tenure classes. They 
visit laborers' families next most often, on the average, and owners 
somewhat less often. They are visited by owners somewhat less often than 
by tenants, and still less often by laborers. Negro laborers' families 
report visiting most frequently in the homes of owners, but they are 
visited by owners relatively least often. The frequency of exchange with 
other laborers' families is about the same when they are visited and when 
visiting. This is also true with respect to frequency of contact of 
Negro laborers with Negro tenants, except the figure is much lower in 
this case (Table 112). 

Turning to the North, we find, as among Southern whites, that own¬ 
ers have highest average frequency of contact with non-farm families, so 
far as visiting other families is concerned, and again they visit other 
owners' families relatively less often than they visit tenants' families. 50/ 
Northern owners are visited, on the other hand, with the greatest 


50/ Relative infrequency of laborers' families mentioned by owners 
again makes the high average contact less significant. 



200 


Table 112.- Average number of times that specified types of inter-family contact are reported as having 

taken place during the past year by tenure class 


Type of contact 

• 

• 

Tenure class of other family 


and informant's 

: Owners 

: Tenants : Laborers : 

Non-farm 

tenure class 

: Total : Average 

: Total : Average : Total : Average : 

Total : Average 


Northern - 


Visiting: 


Visited other family: 


Ov/ners 

159 

21.9 

81+ 

21+4 

5 

71.8 

37 

31+.3 

Tenants 

106 

30.6 

120 

26.9 

3 

25.3 

55 

19.5 

Laborers 

19 

15.0 

28 

9.5 

1 

25.0 

13 

11.1 

Visited by other family: 
Owners 

159 

17.1 

81+ 

25.5 

5 

52.6 

37 

21.6 

Tenants 

106 

25.2 

120 

22.1 

3 

19.3 

55 

16.7 

Laborers 

19 

11.5 

28 

10.6 

l 

- 

13 

19.1 

Exchanging meals: 

Was guest: 

Ov/ners 

159 

5.3 

81+ 

7.1 

5 

5.0 

37 

7.0 

Tenants 

106 

6.1 

120 

7.3 

3 

7.0 

55 

64 

Laborers 

19 

3.9 

28 

3.2 

l 

25.0 

13 

5.2 

Was host: 

Ov/ners 

159 

l+.o 

31+ 

6.7 

5 

7.6 

37 

6.9 

Tenants 

106 

1+.9 

120 

6.1 

3 

7.0 

55 

84 

Laborers 

19 

0.8 

28 

2.6 

l 


13 

l+.l 

Southern white - 

Visiting: 

Visited other family: 

Ov/ners 

123 

31.2 

73 

53.3 

3 

131+.0 

25 

53.2 

Tenants 

117 

1+9.7 

173 

1+8.3 

2 

11.0 

18 

364 

Laborers 

3 

14-7 

21+ 

82.3 

1 

20.0 

1 

3.0 

Visited by other family: 

Owners 

123 

30.2 

73 

6O.5 

3 

55.0 

25 

83.6 

Tenants 

117 

1+5*8 

173 

1+9.5 

2 

10.0 

18 

13.7 

Laborers 

3 

11.0 

21+ 

78.5 

l 

23.0 

1 

2.0 

Exchanging meals: 

Was guest: 

Ov/ners 

123 

3.0 

73 

2.8 

3 

37.3 

25 

11.6 

Tenants 

117 

64 

173 

6.2 

2 

2.5 

18 

1.9 

Laborers 

3 

1.3 

21+ 

12.7 

1 

7.0 

1 


Was host: 

Ov/ners 

123 

3.1 

73 

2.6 

3 

31+.3 

25 

8.6 

Tenants 

117 

5.5 

173 

5.6 

2 

1.0 

18 

1.2 

Laborers 

3 

1.3 

21+ 

3.6 

1 

11.0 

1 


Negro:- 

Visiting: 

Visited other family: 

Ownors 

82 

2I+.5 

73 

27.7 

1 

3.0 

2 

181.0 

Tenants 

lh 

294 

1+1+5 

38.2 

27 

31+.7 

3 

11.6 

Laborers 

6 

1+3*1+ 

69 

17.8 

16 

29.7 



Visited by other family: 

Ov/ners 

82 

21.5 

73 

30.6 

1 

20.0 

2 

181.0 

Tenants 

lh 

27.1 

145 

32.0 

27 

19.8 

3 

13.3 

Laborers 

6 

8.8 

69 

154 

16 

284 



Exchanging meals: 

Was guest: 

Ov/ners 

82 

5.8 

73 

6.7 

1 


2 

1+.5 

Tenants 

lh 

2.8 

4+5 

6.9 

27 

4.5 

3 

11.b 

Laborers 

6 

3.8 

69 

2.5 

16 

2.6 



Was host: 

Owners 

82 

3.6 

73 

8.8 

1 


2 

11.0 

Tenants 

lh 

2.2 

145 

6.9 

27 

154 

3 

9.7 

Laborers 

6 

2.8 

69 

2.0 

16 

3.2 















- 201 - 


average frequency by tenants' families, and least often by other owners' 
families. Northern tenants report both visiting and being visited most 
often by owners, other tenants somewhat less often, and non-farm families 
least often (Table 112). 

The information with’ respect to frequencies of exchanging meals 
shows some rather interesting differences between the various types of 
tenure combinations. Among Southern white families owners report being 
guests for meals at the homes of non-farm families about three times as 
often as in the homes either of other owners or of tenants. The same 
tendency, though not quite to so marked a degree, is present in the case 
of their having members of other families for meals. Tenants in the 
same sample population report practically the same average frequency for 
entertaining owners and other tenants' families, and likewise report the 
same frequency of being guests for meals at the homes of owners and of 
other tenants. But the average frequency for playing the part of guest 
is considerably somewhat higher than the average frequency for playing the 
part of host. Southern white laborers are guests for meals about three 
times as often in the homes of tenants as they have tenants for meals at 
their own homes. The frequency of contact with members of other tenure 
classes is too small to justify further comparisons (Table 112). 

Among Negro families, owners both entertain and are entertained by 
other owners' families for meals considerably more often on the average 
than either tenants or laborers. Tenants, on the other hand, report both 
the giving and receiving of meals more frequently in connection with 
laborers' families than with those in any other tenure class, the lowest 
frequency being in connection with owners' families, and the frequency 
with other tenants' families being about midway between. Laborers' 
families, although the number of cases is small, report being guests for 
meals on the average most often at the homes of owners, while they are 
guests at the homes of tenants and other laborers with about the same 
average frequency. When it comes to entertaining other families for 
meals, laborers act in the capacity of host most often to other laborers, 
somewhat less often to owners, and least often to tenants (Table 112). 

In the North owners exchange meals least often on the average with 
other owners, and considerably more often with tenants and with non—farm 
families. Northern tenants are guests for meals most often in the homes 
of other tenants, somewhat less often in the homes of non—iarm families, 
and least often in the homes of owners, though the range involved is 
small. They have non—farm families for meals most often, other tenants 
considerably less often, and owners least often, although the difference 
between the frequency of entertaining tenants and owners is only slight, 
It is probably important to note, however, that the Northern tenant enter¬ 
tains the non-farm family on the average with considerably giea^ei fre¬ 
quency than he is entertained by the non-farm family. This is not true 
except with respect to insignificant numbers of cases in any other tenure 
class or sample population comparison. 


- 202 - 


In this case the direction of the social current is definitely from 
city or town to country. Northern farm laborers are guests for meals most 
often at non-farm homes; they are guests with somewhat less frequency in 
the homes of owners, and still less frequently in the homes of tenants. 
They act as hosts most often to non-farm families considerably less often 
to tenants', and much less often to owners', families. In each comparison 
laborers act as guests on the average more frequently than as hosts, as is 
generally the case in all tenure classes, with the exception of Negro own¬ 
ers who entertain tenants for meals considerably more often than they are 
entertained by tenants (Table 112). 


To summarize this involved and detailed material we may say that 
owners' contacts with non-farm families with very few exceptions are more 
frequent than with farm families of other tenure classes. Furthermore 
the frequency of owners' contacts with non-farm families is on the average 
much greater than that reported by families in other tenure classes, the 
sole exception being found in the case of Northern tenants who entertain 
non-farm families for meals on the average more frequently than do owners. 
Country cooking, at least in the North, seems to have a strong appeal. 
Tenants' families report informal contact with very much the same average 
frequency, both in connection with other tenants' families and with 
owners' families in all three sample populations, and in all four types 
of informal contact under consideration. 51/ The main exception is that 
Negro tenants exchange meals with other tenant families much more fre¬ 
quently than they do with Negro owners' families, Laborers' families, 
except in the North, report practically no contact with non-farm families, 
and even in the North they report more exchange of visiting with other 
farm than with non-farm families. However, they report more frequently 
exchanging meals with non-farm families than they do with other tenure 
classes of farm families. 



It may seem that we have found here very little wheat in a great 
deal of chaff, but these few grains are valuable. Possibly the most sig¬ 
nificant finding is that Northern tenants are visited for meals by non¬ 
farm families more frequently than they visit these same non-farm fami¬ 
lies for meals. Southern tenants not only have non-farm families for 
meals less often than they are entertained by them, but this type of con¬ 
tact represents relatively a much smaller proportion of all their contacts 
than is true in the North. The Northern tenant not only has non-farm 
friends relatively more often than does the Southern tenant, but also he 
is apparently at no disadvantage socially in comparison with these non¬ 
farm friends. 


Among all families mentioned by our informants as those with whom 
they had most frequent contact during the past year, what proportion are 


31/ Visiting other family, being visited by other family, entertaining 
other family for meals, being entertained by other family for meals. 





- 203 - 


PERCENT 

40 60 


100 


NORTHERN 


RELATED 


OWNERS - 
TENANTS 


UNRELATED 


J606 1 




LABORERS- 

SOUTHERN WHITE 

OWNERS ----- 


■ ' ■ — — ■ y * 

/////// / ✓Q A Q/z / "/ / / / •.*, 

// / / / / / / / JV. J / / / / / / / / /J. . 




• ^ A ^ ... 

• • • • • • • n h /*••••• • ... 


TENANTS -— 855 ^28. 933 ^^ 71.1 


LABORERS- 

NEGRO 

OWNERS-- 

TENANTS - 

LABORERS- 


///////////. q-7 q / // // // // //A v • V.w.V. 

>✓✓//✓////// 3 / .3 /✓/>/•✓✓/✓/ / j .. . 


62.1 


mv i a. s sis 


/////// oc o 

/////// <-D.sJ 


/ / // / //1 , 

</ 


13.1 • 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 32684 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 27 .- Percentages of relatives and non-relatives among all families 

WITH WHOM INFORMANTS' FAMILIES HAD MOST FREQUENT CONTACT, BY 

TENURE OF INFORMANT. 


relatives and what proportion are unrelated? The largest proportion of 
relatives is found among families mentioned by Northern tenants (42 per¬ 
cent). The proportion is almost as high, however, among Northern owners 
(39 percent), while among Northern laborers it is about three-fourths as 
large as in the higher tenure classes (30 percent). In the South the 
largest proportion of relatives is mentioned by white laboiers, among 
whom the percentage is even higher than that for Northern laborers (38 
percent). (See Fig. 27.) 

In this comparison we find the South showing exactly the opposite 
situation from that found in the North, for the proportion of relatives 
mentioned by both owners and tenants is less than the proportion mentioned 
by laborers, both among Negroes and whites. 

In other words, the proportion of relatives mentioned by Southern 
white owners (27 percent) and tenants (29 percent) is only about three- 
fourths as high as that mentioned by laborers (38 percent). Among Negioes, 
although the proportion of relatives mentioned is smaller m each tenure 
' class than among Southern whites, practically the same excess percentage 
of relatives mentioned by laborers over that mentioned by owners and 
































































- 204 - 


tenants remains. The percentages are: laborers, 26; owners, 20; renters, 
19 (Fig. 27). Again keeping in mind this relatively greater im¬ 
portance of contact with kinsfolk among laborers than with upper tenure 
classes in the South, and with the upper tenure classes than with labor¬ 
ers in the North, we may take up the frequencies with which the various 
types of informal contact are reported. 

One might expect the greatest average frequency of contact, both of 
visiting and of being visited, of entertaining for meals and of being en¬ 
tertained for meals, to be reported with regard to kinsfolk. This ex¬ 
pectation, however, is not upheld by all tenure classes in our data. It 
is true almost without exception with respect to tenants' families, for 
in each sample population and in each of the four types of comparison we 
find contact to be considerably the greatest with relatives, with the ex¬ 
ception that Northern tenants are visited by unrelated families with a 
slightly higher average frequency than by kinsfolk. The same tendency is 
found among owners but with some significant exceptions. In each of the 
four types of contact Northern owners report higher average frequencies 
in the case of kinsfolk•than when unrelated families are involved. Among 
Southern whites, on the contrary, owners report both visiting and being 
visited by unrelated families over half again as often as in the case of 
related families. Among Negroes, relatives consistently receive greater 
contact so far as owners' families are concerned than do unrelated fami¬ 
lies, but the differences in the case of visiting are so small as to be 
insignificant. 

Laborers' data conflict with the popular notion most frequently. 
Southern white laborers in three types of contact out of four report a 
much higher average frequency of contact with unrelated families than 
with relatives, and even in the fourth type the difference, though in the 
opposite direction, is very slight. Likewise among Negro laborers, visit¬ 
ing of unrelated families is reported as taking place on the average more 
frequently than visiting of related families. So far as laborers are con¬ 
cerned, the only significantly greater frequency of contact with relatives 
is found among Negroes when the exchanging of meals is considered. Here 
we find laborers both entertaining relatives and being entertained by 
relatives for meals more often than when unrelated families are involved. 

We may say then, in summarizing this material, that the greatest 
confirmation of the popular notion is to be found with respect to the 
exchanging of meals. In this type of contact, in all three sample popu¬ 
lations and for each of the three tenure classes compared, the preponder¬ 
ance of contact with relatives, with only one exception, is large and 
apparently significant. The one exception is found in the case of South¬ 
ern white laborers who report being entertained for meals in the homes of 
unrelated friends about three times as often as in the homes of relatives. 
The uniqueness of the situation of this tenure class is further borne out 
by the fact that the difference between the frequencies with which its 
members entertain relatives and non-relatives is smaller than is true of 
any other tenure class in any of the sample populations (Table 113). 


- 205 - 


Table 113 •- Average number of times that specified types of inter-family oontaot are reported as 
having taken plaoe during the past year with related and unrelated families 


Type of contact i ' Kinship to other f'amily 

and informant's t Related > Unrelated 

tenure olasa t Total t Average : Total i Average 

Northern - 

Visitingi 


Visited other familyi 

Owners 

119 

34.5 

183 

18.9 

Tenants 

127 

29.5 

174 

24.5 

Laborers 

20 

15.9 

46 

12.9 

Visited by other family* 

Owners 

119 

27 Jx 

183 

17.7 

Tenants 

127 

21.8 

174 

2.2 

Laborers 

20 

6.9 

46 

2.9 


Exchanging meals* 


Was guesti 


Owners 

119 

10.7 

183 

3.5 

Tenants 

127 

12.0 

174 

3.8 

Laborers 

20 

6.9 

46 

2.9 

Was host: 




22.8 

Owners 

119 

10.0 

183 

Tenants 

127 

10.7 

174 

3.6 

Laborers 

20 

5.0 

46 

1.2 


Southern white - 



Visiting* 

Visited other family* 

63 


Owners 


Tenants 

90 


laborers 

Visited by other family* 

11 


Owners 

63 


Tenants 

90 

Laborers 

11 


Exchanging meals* 

Was guest* 

63 


Owners 

Tenants 

90 


laborers 

11 


Was host* 

63 

Owners 


Tenants 

90 


Laborers 

11 


31.3 

168 

46.0 

66.1 

221 

40.3 

31.4 

18 

94.3 

32 .4 

168 

50.8 

54.5 

221 

41.5 

31.4 

18 

88.7 


7.1 

168 

3.8 

13.3 

221 

3.0 

4.6 

18 

14.7 

6.4 

168 

1.6 

io,9 

221 

2.7 

3.8 

18 

3*3 


Negro - 









Visitingr 


Visited other family* 

Owners 

Tenants 

Laborers 

34 

io4 

25 

31.2 

52.2 

19.0 

135 

456 

69 

27.2 

35.3 
23.8 

Visited by other family* 
Owners 

Tenants 

laborers 

34 

io4 

.25 

27.3 

36.2 

14.6 

135 

456 

26.8 

31.9 
20.0 

Exchanging meals* 





Was'guest * 

Owners 

Tenants 

Laborers 

34 

104 

25 

14.3 

18.2 

5.2 

135 

456 

69 

4.3 

4.0 

2.1 

Was host* 

Owners 

Tenants 

Laborers 

34 

io4 

25 

13.0 

8.3 

4.9 

135 

456 

69 

4.2 

6.3 

1.9 








- 206 - 


One further point should be brought out. Only Negro informants 
reported having informal contacts with families of another race. Alto¬ 
gether, only five instances of such a relationship were reported by 
Negroes, and each of these consisted of the colored family visiting the 
white family. In other words, although this type of contact as reported 
by our informants represents an insignificant fraction of all informal 
inter-family contact, it is significant of the existing social relation¬ 
ships. In the first place, the Negro families involved in these inter- 
family contacts, without question being regarded by white people as their 
inferiors, are permitted by custom to visit friendly members of the 
superior white class, But no instances are reported, either by Negroes 
or by whites, of members of the superior class placing themselves in a 
position to receive hospitality at the hands of members of the inferior 
class, Thus we get some slight confirmation of the hypothesis expressed 
earlier that the receiving of hospitality implies, or at least suggests, 
a dependency relationship between guest and host. 

The second implication, far more fundamental than the first, con¬ 
cerns the inseparability of status relationships from race relationships, 
and hence the overwhelmingly greater significance in the South of race 
as compared with tenure class in the determination of social status. This 
implication, while so commonplace or self-evident as not to require men¬ 
tion to the Southerner, may not be so well known to the Northerner, and 
particularly to the Northerner with reformist aspirations. It may be 
that the theorist, speculating at a distance about the Southern share¬ 
croppers, Negro and white, may see no significant difference in their fun¬ 
damental characteristics; but if, in the face of such evidence as this, 
he continues to regard the racial factor as subordinate to the economic, 
in the total complex of factors which explain the social and economic con¬ 
dition of the Negro cropper or laborer, he must be indulging in wishful 
thinking, 


Formally Organized Group Participation 

In this section we shall consider, first of all, the relationships 
between tenure class and total members per family in all organizations; 
second, between tenure class and a measure of maximum attendance; and 
third, leadership as indicated by number of offices held in organiza¬ 
tions by members of the family. Following this, we shall take up briefly 
membership in, attendance at, and offices held in, several types of 
organizations - religious, educational, occupational, economic, and fra¬ 
ternal . 


In each sample population the average number of memberships held 
per family in all organizations is largest among renters, smallest among 
laborers, with owners' and croppers' families coming somewhere between. 
Renters' families have almost three times as many memberships on the aver¬ 
age in the North as laborers. Among Southern whites this excess is even 
greater, for the ratio is about four to one. Among Negro families tenure 
differences are similar but less marked (Table 114). 






- 207 - 


Table 114.- Average family figures for specified types of participation 
during the past year in formally organized groups 


• 

• 

Item : 

Owners : 

Renters 

Croppers 

: Laborers 

Northern: 

Average membership 
per family in all 
organizations 

7.8 


8.5 1/ 

3.3 

Average maximum at¬ 
tendance per family 
in all organizations 

79.3 


71.5 

42.8 

Average number of 
offices held per family 
in all organizations 

.9 


.9 

.4 

Southern white: 

Average membership 
per family in all 
organizations 

6.2 

8.0 

6.1 

2.2 

Average maximum at¬ 
tendance per family 
in all organizations 

65.2 

71.8 

57.9 

22.2 

Average number of 
offices held per family 
in all organizations 

.5 

.4 

.4 

— 

Negro: 

Average membership 
per family in all 
organizations 

6.0 

7.3 

4.9 

3.9 

Average maximum at¬ 
tendance per family 
in all organizations 

58.8 

60.0 

43.7 

39.6 

Average number of 
offices held per family 
in all organizations 

.9 

.7 

.4 

.3 

1/ Figures for Northern 

croppers 

included 

with those 

for renters. 


Since it is the relative standing of the several tenure classes 
regarding various matters that we are trying to discover, rather than a 
precise determination of those matters themselves, we have experimented 
with a novel measure, "maximum participation." When the interviewer 
talked with the farmer or his wife about the participation of members of 
the family in organized groups, one question asked regarding each oigan 
ization in which membership was held was somewhat as follows. Which 










member of the family attends meetings of this organization most frequent¬ 
ly, and how often does this person attend the meetings of this organi¬ 
zation?" We were attempting to get an idea of the maximum attendance 
reported by any member of the family for each organization to which one or 
more members of the family belonged. Combining these maximum attendances 
gives what we call the "maximum" attendance figure. Adding these figures 
for all families within a tenure class and dividing that aggregate 
by the total number of families in the tenure class, we get an average 
maximum attendance figure. 

When we compare tenure classes with respect to their participation 
in terms of this measure, we find that owners' families in the North re¬ 
port a higher average than other tenure classes. Renters' families re¬ 
port the highest average among Southern whites, while among Negroes owners 
and renters report practically the same figure. 

Comparing maximum figures in the three sample populations, we find 
the average for owners in the North to be about 80 per family per year. 
Among Southern white renters it is about 72 per year, and among Negro 
owners and renters it is about 60 per year. In other words, just as in 
the case of number of memberships per family, the average maximum attend¬ 
ance figure is highest among Northern whites, lowest among Negroes, and 
intermediate among Southern whites. Furthermore, the greater similarity 
between the maximum figures among Negro families than that appearing among 
white families in the South is probably significant. Of all the tenure 
classes compared, the figure reported by Southern white laborers is the 
lowest, equaling only about one-half that reported by Negro or Northern 
laborers (Table 114). 

The importance of leadership in organized group life is difficult 
to overestimate. Accordingly, the differences in the contribution of 
officers by the various tenure classes are significant and worthy of 
emphasis. The most striking progression appears in the case of Negro 
families. The relative contributions of officers by families in the 
various tenure classes are as follows: laborers, 2; croppers, 3; rent¬ 
ers, 5; and owners, 6. Among Southern whites no offices are held by 
laborers' families, and the sequence from smaller to larger leadership 
contributions is likewise cropper, renter, and owner. In the North, the 
ratio of offices held by owners' to laborers' families is about 2 to 1, 
wuile the contribution of renters' families is the same as that of owners' . 
Briefly, in each of the three sample populations the leadership contri¬ 
bution by laborers is least, and that by owners is most, and that by rent¬ 
ers and croppers comes somewhere between (Table 114) , 

To simplify tenure class comparisons, we have determined the rela¬ 
tive average number of members per family, average maximum attendance, and 
average number of offices held in the various types of organizations, 
with the figure for owners in each case as 100 percent. In other words, 
the figure reported for owners' families is regarded as the base or norm, 
and that for families in other tenure classes is determined as a per- 


- 209 - 




centage of the figure for owners. In each of the three sample populations 
renters report relatively a larger number of memberships than owners, and 
laborers' families report the fewest. The maximum attendance measure 
again shows laborers to be consistently lowest. Croppers are next lowest 
renters in the South exceed, although in the North they do not reach, the 
figure for owners. Leadership, as represented by offices held, shows the 
most consistent tenure differences, for in each sample population renters 
contribute relatively less than owners, croppers less than renters, and 
laborers the least. Cash contributions to all organizations follow a 
similarly regular pattern; in each case owners contribute most, renters less, 
croppers still less, and laborers least. Owners in the South, however, 
both white and colored, contribute only about one-half as much as do 
Northern owners and, accordingly, the average cash contribution to all 
organizations by Northern tenants is much larger than that by Southern 
owners (Table 115). 

Turning now from the question of participation in all types of 
organizations, let us consider several significant categories of organ¬ 
izations. In each sample population, using the figures for owners' fami¬ 
lies as the norm, there is an excess number of members of religious organ¬ 
izations in renters' families, while laborers show relatively the fewest 
number. Among Negroes, croppers’ families also show relatively fewer 
members than do owners’ families, but among Southern whites the figure for 
croppers is slightly larger than that for owners. 

Regarding maximum attendance, the largest figure is reported by 
owners in the North and by renters in the South, the other tenure classes 
retaining the same relative positions. Leadership as measured by offices 
held, is again contributed least by laborers, but renters and croppers 
exceed owners relatively among the Southern whites, while tenants con¬ 
tribute practically the same amount of officers as do owners in the North. 
Cash contributions reveal a regular tenure sequence, owners contributing 
most, renters somewhat less, croppers still less, and laborers least. 
But it is interesting that the relative contribution of Negro laborers 
is six times that of Southern white laborers. Furthermore, the contri¬ 
bution of Negro croppers is on the average practically identical with that 
of white croppers, while Negro renters contribute even more on the average 
than do white renters in the South. (See Table 115; also Table 116, p.213.) 

Occupational organizations in the South show tenure differences 
which are strikingly different from those appearing in religious organ¬ 
izations. Renters contribute practically twice as many members to or¬ 
ganizations of this type as do owners among white farmers, and two and 
one-half times as many as owners among Negro farmers. In the North the 
contribution of owners and tenants to occupational organizations are just 
on a par. Northern laborers contribute about one-third as many members 
as do either owners or tenants, while in the South, among both Negroes 
and whites, they contribute none whatever. The same is true of Negro 
croppers, while white croppers contribute about four-fifths as many as 
owners' families. 






- 210 - 


Table 115.- Average participation of non-owner families in formally 
organized groups, expressed as percentages 
of figures for owners* families 


Item 

*Grand* *Educa-*0ccupa- 

* totaljReligious *tional*tional 

* • 

*Eoonomio * Fraternal 

Northern: 

Maximum attendance: 

Owners 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

Tenants 

90.2 

88.8 

92.6 

59.9 

47.0 

118.7 

Laborers 

54.0 

66.9 

16.2 

88.7 

- 

- 

Total members; 

Owners 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

Tenants 

109.8 

113.8 

119.3 

100.0 

50.0 

55.8 

Laborers 

43.0 

56.8 

12.3 

35.9 

- 

16.3 

Total offices; 

Owners 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

Tenants 

92.6 

98.3 

85.7 

137.5 

42.9 

105.1 

Laborers 

*4.2 

58.3 

- 

- 

mm 

- 

Southern white* 

Maximum attendance* 

Owners 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

Renters 

110.2 

108.6 

114.4 

228.0 

9.5 

666.7 

Croppers 

80.8 

88.6 

120.3 

47.4 

- 

476,0 

Laborers 

34.1 

36.9 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Total members* 

Owners 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100,0 

100.0 

100.0 

Renters 

129.1 

135.0 

76.9 

196.0 

111.8 

144.1 

Croppers 

98.5 

104.3 

66.2 

80.0 

m 

69.1 

Laborers 

36.4 

42.1 

- 

- 

m 

- 

Total offioes* 

Owners 

100.0 

100.0 

100,0 

• 

m 

• 

Renters 

90.0 

110.3 

63.8 

- 

m 

m 

Croppers 

84.0 

107.7 

m 

m 

ft 

m 

Laborers 

" 

- 

m 

- 

- 

m 

Negro* 

Maximum attendance* 

Owners 

100.0 

100.0 

100,0 

100.0 

m 

100.0 

Renters 

101.9 

112.8 

8.9 

88.8 

m 

71.2 

Croppers 

74.3 

84.7 

18,7 

m 

m 


Laborers 

87,3 

78.7 

17,9 

59.1 

m 

■ 

Total members* 

Owners 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

m 

100.0 

Renters 

118.9 

130,4 

13.3 

259.0 

m 

73.3 

Croppers 

77.4 

@7.3 

38.3 

m 

m 

12,1 

Laborers 

82.8 

70,8 

40.4 

m 

m 

at 

Total offioes 

Owners 

100,0 

100,0 

100,0 

m 

m 

100.0 

Renters 

76.8 

78,8 

- 

m 

m 

88,1 

Croppers 

47,9 

85.3 

- 

- 

m 

m 

Laborers 

33.0 

42,4 

182,8 

Ml 

m 

m 









211 - 


Maximum attendance data show a different situation, however, for 
owners' families among Northern and Negro farmers show the largest 
figures, while those for laborers exceed tenants in the North. Among 
Southern whites the large superiority of membership in this type of 
organization is paralleled by an equally high average maximum attendance 
figure. Officers of this type of organization apparently do not come 
from the farm in the South, for no offices in occupational organizations 
are reported as held by members of either Negro or white families. In 
the North, on the contrary, tenants' families contribute one-third more 
officers to this type of organization than do owners. 

A striking superiority of Northern tenants and Southern renters 
appears with respect to the average cash contribution to occupational 
organizations, In fact, this is the only type of organization in which 
the average contribution of families in any tenure class other than 
owners is largest. On a percentage basis, tenants' families in the North 
contribute nineteen times as much as owners, and renters' families in the 
South four times as much as owners among white fanners but the differences 
are slight between Negro renters and Negro farm owners. Neither croppers 
nor laborers report contributions to this type of organization. In view 
of the nature and function of the organized activities included in this 
category, and in view of the fact that where a man's money goes his heart 
goes also, it would seem that the cropper and the laborer either are little 
interested in farming as an occupation or that sharply drawn class lines 
exclude these tenure groups (Table 115). 

Closely related to the type of organizations just discussed are 
economic organizations. In this category we find the owner largely 
dominating the scene. He overshadows the tenant and laborer in the 
North more completely in this than in any other category of organi¬ 
zations. In the South this type of organization does not exist among 
Negroes, nor, if we may judge by membership figures, does it exist for 
laborers or croppers among whites. White renters in the South, although 
consistently showing an excess of memberships over owners, in all types of 
organizations except educational, show a smaller excess in this type than 
in the other types discussed. Maximum attendance figures show these same 
Southern white renters to leave the running of the organizations very 
largely to the owners, for their maximum attendance figure is only one- 
tenth that of the average given by owners. In the North, similarly, the 
maximum attendance reported by tenants is only one—half that given by 
owners, a greater disparity than is found in any other type of oigani- 
zation in this sample population. The same relative dominance of owners 
generally appears with regard to offices held. In the South, offices 
in economic organizations, like offices in occupational 01 ganizations, are 
apparently not held with any considerable frequency by farmers, regard¬ 
less of tenure, at least not on the basis of our sample. In the North, 
cash contributions by owners to organizations of this type greatly exceed 
those by tenants and laborers. This is also true, though not to so marked 
an extent, among Southern whites (Table 115). 




- 212 - 


Organizations of one more type, those of a fraternal nature, may be 
discussed briefly. Among Northern farmers, memberships are most frequently 
held by owners, about one-half as often by tenants, and still less often 
by laborers. Laborers in the South report no memberships in this type of 
organization, but among Southern whites the proportion of renters’ member¬ 
ships is greater than that of owners, and even croppers report a figure 
over two-thirds as large as that of owners. Among Negroes, renters' 
memberships are about three-fourths as numerous, relatively, as owners' 
while croppers' memberships are about one-tenth as frequent as owners'. 
Maximum attendance figures indicate that Southern white croppers, rela¬ 
tively, are at less disadvantage in this type of organization than in any 
other, for their average maximum participation figure is almost five times 
as large as that for owners. The superiority of the renters' figure over 
that of owners' likewise reaches it maximum in this category of organi¬ 
zations, for the figure representing average maximum attendance of renters 
is nearly seven times that of owners. Only in this type of organization 
does the maximum attendance figure of Northern tenants exceed that of 
Northern owners. 

Here, evidently, is a type of organization significantly different 
from those previously discussed, at least so far as white farmers are con¬ 
cerned. Apparently, it is one in which owners either are uninterested, or 
in which the lower tenure classes have acquired a dominant position. 
Among Negroes, however, a different situation prevails, for membership, 
average maximum attendance, and offices held are largest among owners, 
smaller among renters, and smallest among croppers. The fact that Negro 
owners contribute more officers on the average to fraternal organizations 
than do the other tenure classes bears out this hierarchy. The interpre¬ 
tation suggested with respect to owners in fraternal organizations seems 
to be contradicted, however, by the fact that white owners contribute 
more on the average than do the lower tenure classes. It leaves open the 
possibility, at any rate, that fraternal organizations actually are fra¬ 
ternal, that is, they may allow more crossing of tenure lines than seems 
to be the case in other types of organizations with the possible excep¬ 
tion of religious organizations. 

A final comparison may be made to show how the various tenure 
classes distribute the money which they pay to various types of organi¬ 
zations. On this basis we find that no less than four-fifths of all 
contributions go to religious organizations, regardless of tenure class, 
in all three sample populations. In fact, Southern laborers report no 
contributions to any other type of organization, and less than 2 percent 
of croppers' contributions in the South go to the fraternal organizations 
that are the only other type of organization to receive any cash from 
this tenure class. Fraternal organizations in the North receive a rela¬ 
tively larger proportion of contributions from laborers than from owners 
or from tenants. Occupational organizations in the North receive rela¬ 
tively nineteen times as large a share of tenants' contributions as the 
share of owners' contributions going to this type of organization; but 


- 213 - 





r r l T; 0Wn contributions were relatively three times 

a rp^t i f tenants. Economic organizations, however, receive 

than of lowlr r ger ° f ° Wners ’ oontribut ions to all organizations 

than of lower tenure class members’ contributions (Table 116). 


Table 116.- Average amount of cash per informant family, paid to speoi 

fied types of organizations 


Item 

: Grand 

: total 

• ! 

:Religious: 

Educa¬ 

tional 

: Occupa- 
: tional 

:Economic: 

:Fraternal 

Northern: 

Owners 

$23.70 

$19.50 

$0.20 

$0.10 

$2.30 

$1.20 

Tenants 

20.70 

17.50 

.10 

1.60 

.70 

.80 

Laborers 

6.40 

5.30 

— 

— 

.30 

.60 

Southern white: 

Owners 

13.10 

12.10 

.30 

.10 

.10 

.50 

Renters 

9.10 

8.10 

.20 

.30 

.10 

.40 

Croppers 

5.70 

5.60 

— 

_ 


.10 

Laborers 

.70 

.70 

— 

— 

— 


Negro: 

Owners 

12.50 

10.50 

.30 

.10 

_ 

1.70 

Renters 

10.20 

9.30 

— 

.10 

— 

.80 

Croppers 

5,70 

5.60 

— 



.10 

Laborers 

3.80 

3.80 

— 

— 

— 





To summarize this comparison we may say that, with the exception of 
occupational and fraternal organizations, owners consistently contribute 
the most, renters less, croppers still less, and laborers the least in the 
way of financial support, to all types of organizations. Leadership con¬ 
tributions, likewise, are consistently greatest among owners, with the ex¬ 
ception of occupational organizations in the North and of religious 
organizations among Southern whites. Furthermore, among Northern fami¬ 
lies owners attend relatively more frequently, as judged by maximum 
attendance figures, in all types of organizations except fraternal, while 
among Southern whites renters show the largest average maximum attendance 
figures, except in the case of economic organizations, for all types of 
organizations. 

We may not say, accordingly, that participation in formally or¬ 
ganized activities strictly follows tenure lines, for, as we have seen, 
the dominance of owners is much greater in one type of organization than 
in others, and in some types actually gives way to superiority on the part 
of the lower tenure classes. 













- 214 - 


Miscellaneous Types of Group Life 

Of group life in the country there remains now only a series of 
miscellaneous types to be discused. In chapter II the sample popu¬ 
lation differences with respect to these types of participation were 
pointed out; now we shall consider tenure differences. To simplify the 
tenure comparison, the frequency of participation by owners is used as 
the base, 100 percent, and the relative participation of non-owners is 
expressed as a percentage of that figure. 52/ 

In all three sample populations non-owners vote less frequently 
and pay taxes less frequently proportionally than do owners. The differ¬ 
ence between the frequency of such behavior on the part of non-owners and 
owners is relatively smallest in the North, largest among Negroes, and 
intermediate on the part of Southern white farmers. The participation of 
non-owners in the North so far as voting is concerned is over 95 percent 
that of owners, and paying taxes is over 90 percent the frequency for 
that of owners; but the frequency of voting reported by non-owning Negroes 
is only one-third that reported by owners, and a similar ratio exists with 
respect to paying taxes. 

Non-owners in the North attend county fairs practically as often as 
do owners, while Southern white non-owners report such attendance about 
three-fourths as often as Southern white owners, and Negro non-owners 
report such attendance about 40 percent as often as owners. In other 
words, although in none of the sample populations do non-owners attend 
county fairs as often relatively as do owners, the discrepancy is least in 
the North, largest among Negroes, and somewhat between the two among 
Southern whites. 

Southern white non-owners attend movies relatively more frequently 
than do owners in that sample population, while among Northern and Negro 
farmers non-owners report a slightly lower proportional frequency attend¬ 
ing movies than do owners. 

Picnicking, much more frequent in the North than in the South, is 
indulged in as often by Northern non-owners as by owners, while in the 
South, both among Negroes and whites, non-owners go in for this type of 
recreation only about three-fourths as often relatively as do owners in 
the respective sample populations. 

Religious revivals are attended relatively much more frequently 
by non-owners in the North than by owners, although the proportion of all 


52/ For example, if with respect to a particular function 75 percent of 
owners report attendance and 75 percent of non-owners likewise report 
attendance, then the figure for non-owners is 100 percent that of owners. 




- 215 - 


1 Northern farmers who attend revivals is comparatively small. In the 
South, where revivals are attended by a much larger proportion of all 
farmers, non-owners attend relatively about as often as do owners; the 
pioportions are practically identical in the case of whites, but among 

Negroes the proportion among non-owners is nine-tenths as large as among 
owners. 

Fishing was reported most frequently by Negroes, somewhat less 
ox ten by Southein whites, and least often by Northern farmers. Non-owners 
among Negroes suffer no disadvantage with respect to this type of pos¬ 
sibly profitable recreation, for they report going fishing just as often 
as do owners and hunting 125 percent as often as owners. Fishing is re¬ 
ported by fewer non-owners than owners among whites, both in the North 
and in the South, while hunting is much more often reported by non- 
owners than by owners in the North, and a little less often than owners by 
non-owning Southern whites. 

In summary we may say that apparently the most significant tenure 
differences appear with respect to those types of miscellaneous social 
participation which involve civic functions. Tenure differences are much 
less, or even reversed - that is, the participation of non-owners may 
exceed that of owners - in the case of the more private and less formally 
organized types of social participation (Table 117). 


Table 117.- Average family figures of non-owners for participation in 
miscellaneous types of group activity expressed 
as percentages of figures for families 

of owners 



: Northern 

: Southern white 

Negro 

Type of 
activity 

: Number : 
;of cases; 

Ratio 1/ 

: Number ; 
;of cases; 

Ratio 1/ 

Number ; 

of cases; 

Ratio 1/ 

Voted 

68 

98.5 

52 

82.0 

10 

31.9 

Paid taxes 

69 

92.0 

80 

67.9 

43 

33.2 

Attended - 
County fair 

34 

98,5 

18 

76.8 

28 

39.8 

Movies 

58 

97.5 

45 

108.9 

26 

94.7 

Picnics 

55 

100.0 

27 

81.6 

30 

76.9 

Religious 

revivals 

26 

146.0 

53 

101.0 

119 

92.1 

Went fishing 

29 

90.2 

33 

83.5 

75 

101.0 

Went hunting 

42 

147.0 

44 

93.9 

84 

126.4 


1/ See footnote 32, p. 214. 














- 216 - 


Chapter VIII 


LEVELS AND STANDARDS OF LIVING: WHAT FARM FAMILIES HAVE 

AND WHAT THEY PREFER 33/ 

It is clearly desirable to know the differences between tenure 
classes with respect to the things they have, the possessions with which 
they carry on their day-to-day living. It is of no less importance to 
learn whether or not there are tenure differences with respect to the de¬ 
sires and aspirations which are behind and beneath the more easily observ¬ 
able phenomena of living. Only if we know something about these can we 
hope to understand our information regarding possessions. 34/ With this 
preliminary word, then, let us turn to the data. 

Things to Live With 

So far as most people are concerned, the living quarters of a fam¬ 
ily will probably tell more about its level of living than anything else. 
In modern America we may want to judge this matter by the value of the 
automobile that stands in the yard, but the characteristics of the house 
probably tell a good deal about levels of living in this country even 
today. 


How do houses vary, then, between tenure classes with respect to 
certain characteristics? Disregarding the great variations in sizes of 
rooms, how do houses vary in size, judged by median number of rooms? Our 
data show through the tenure classes, and sample populations as well, a 
striking downward progression. Beginning with the largest and going to 
the smallest, this is the sequence: Northern owners (7.7), Northern ten¬ 
ants (7.3), Northern laborers (6.5); Southern white owners (5.7), South¬ 
ern white tenants and colored owners (having the same median figure, 4.4), 
Southern white laborers (3.9); Negro laborers (3.8), and lowest of all, 
Negro tenants (3.5). 

Differences in the sizes of families make it desirable to reduce 
the comparison to one of number of rooms per resident member of the fami¬ 
ly. On this basis we find again that the most spacious living quarters are 
enjoyed by Northern owners, followed by the non-owning tenure classes in 
the North. White owners and renters in the South have the same amount of 
space, but it is less than that for any of the Northern tenure classes. 
Negro families, regardless of tenure class, have the least space, the most 


33/ The data presented in the second and third sections of this chapter 
are based on the long schedule sample populations. 

34/ The distinction made in chapter II between the terms "standard of 
living" and "level of living" will be adhered to in the following dis¬ 
cussion . 




- 217 - 


crowding being tound among croppers' families. On the average, each mem¬ 
ber or a Northern owner's family has three times as much house space as 
does a member of a Negro cropper's family. 

It is to be recognized that Northern farm people probably spend 
more time inside their houses than Southern farm people, and that the 
porches Oi houses in the South are more important as living quarters 
than are those in the North. But in spite of the allowances to be made 
because of climatic differences, there is least crowding in the North 
and most crowding within the houses of the lower tenure classes among 
Negro families in the South (Fig. 28, p. 220). 

In the attempt to find out which, of several conveniences that 
are ordinarily thought of as permanent facilities in the house, is most 
often preferred by housewives, three items were considered together- 
running water, kitchen sink with drain, and indoor toilet. At the same 
time, inquiry was made as to which, or which combination, of these items 
was available for use. 35/ Of the three items mentioned, Northern fam¬ 
ilies regardless of tenure class most frequently report having kitchen 
sinks with drains, but owners and tenants clearly are better supplied in 
this respect than laborers. The same is true with regard to running 
water. Indoor toilets are reported in the homes of one out of every 
five owners, one of every ten tenants, and one of every fourteen laborers. 
Tenure classes do not agree closely with respect to preferences, for 
owners' wives most frequently express a desire for the convenience of 
running water in the house, kitchen sink with drain coming last in or¬ 
der of preference. The indoor toilet is preferred by about 7 percent of 
tenants' wives, but the proportions both of owners' and laborers' wives 
making this choice is four to five times as large. Running water comes 
last, among the conveniences considered, among the preferences of the 
wives of the laborers (Table 118). 

When the same question is put to white housewives in the South, 
tenure differences .in responses are less pronounced. 36/ But in each 
comparison between what owners and tenants have, the latter report the 
presence of a convenience only one-half to one-ninth as often as do 


35/ In the analysis of this material, renters and croppers were first 
considered separately. But a careful comparison of differences between 
these two tenure classes with respect to the materials discussed in 
this section revealed the differences to be so slight as to make it 
possible to combine renters and croppers without doing violence to the 
data and without losing any significant distinctions. Accoidingly, 
tables, figures, and text refer to renters and croppers combined under 
the general term "tenants." 

36/ The percentages based on numbers of laborers' families are unreli¬ 
able because of the small number of cases involved. 











- 218 - 


Table 118.- Percentages of families who now have available for use speci¬ 
fied facilities, and percentages of housewives expressing 
preference for one of the specified facilities 


Sample population : 


Owners : 

Tenants : 

Laborers 

and conveniences : 

Now 

have: 

Prefer: 

Now have: 

Prefer: 

Now have: 

Prefer 

Northern: 









Total number of 









cases 


63 


61 



14 


A: 









Running water 

24 


56 

20 

46 

7 


21 

Kitchen sink 

57 


17 

54 

47 

21 


43 

Indoor toilet 

21 


27 

10 

7 

7 


36 

B: 









Sewing machine 

98 


19 

93 

20 

64 


21 

Washing machine 
Icebox or 

75 


65 

77 

74 

64 


64 

refrigerator 

43 


16 

44 

7 

29 


14 

Southern white: 









Total number of 









cases 


58 


72 



8 


A: 









Running water 

14 


65 

6 

58 

25 


62 

Kitchen sink 

21 


24 

7 

29 

12 


37 

Indoor toilet 

9 


10 

1 

12 

— 


— 

B: 









Sewing machine 

72 


59 

78 

53 

12 


62 

Washing machine 
Ice box or 

9 


14 

4 

15 

12 


25 

refrigerator 

29 


28 

29 

32 

12 


12 

Negro: 









Total number of 









cases 


34 


114 



19 


A: 









Running water 

— 


53 

1 

32 

— 


21 

Kitchen sink 

— 


32 

2 

44 

_ 


53 

Indoor toilet 

— 


12 

— 

24 

_ 


26 

B: 









Sewing machine 

73 


62 

44 

63 

42 


68 

Washing machine 
Icebox or 

— 


9 

1 

16 

— 


16 

refrigerator 

18 


26 

8 

20 

5 


16 











the former. As in the North, the greatest difference appears with res¬ 
pect to availability of an indoor toilet. Almost two—thirds of Southern 
white housewives express a preference for running water, which is a 
considerably higher proportion than was the case with Northern house¬ 
wives. The indoor toilet is mentioned by about 10 percent as first 
choice both among owners' and tenants' families (Table 118). 

The only conclusion to be drawn from the information about these 
facilities in colored households is that they are almost totally ab¬ 
sent. Marked tenure differences are found with respect to preferences, 
a majority of owners' housewives preferring running water, and a majority 
of laborers' housewives preferring the kitchen sink. The indoor toilet 
is again preferred by comparatively small proportions (Table 118). 

As a rough index for comparing tenure-class possesssions with re¬ 
gard to these items, we may consider the proportions of households report¬ 
ing none of the three items (Fig. 29). The similarity between owners 
and tenants in the North as contrasted with laborers, the inversion of 
the usual tenure order among Southern whites, and the fact that among Ne¬ 
groes nearly 100 percent, regardless of tenure class, fall in this cate¬ 
gory sum up the situation concisely. 

The next comparison is with respect to less permanent conveniences: 
sewing machine, washing machine, and icebox or refrigerator. The house¬ 
wife again was asked which of the three items she would most prefer if she 
could have but one of the three. Owners and tenants in the North are con¬ 
siderably better fixed with respect to these items than are laborers, 
while tenants report both washing machines and refrigerators more fre¬ 
quently than do owners. Among Southern whites tenure differences between 
owners and renters are insignificant, and laborers report relatively 
smaller proportions of sewing machines and refrigerators. Preferences 
concentrate on the sewing machine, tenure differences apparently being of 
minor importance. 

Turning now to colored households, we find that sewing machines 
are possessed by nearly three-fourths of all owners, but only two out of 
five renters, croppers, or laborers. Refrigerators are quite rare, and 
washing machines are practically non-existent in households of all class¬ 
es. Preferences, among Negroes as among Southern whites, are most fre¬ 
quently expressed for the sewing machine. Although Negro housewives seem 
to have wants in general very similar to those of white housewives, so 
far as our comparison shows, Negro families are at a more or less serious 
disadvantage as compared with white families, regardless of item con¬ 
sidered (Table 118). 

The marked differences between the three sample populations con¬ 
cerning the foregoing material deserve some emphasis. Although tenure 
differences regarding possessions have been found, there seem to be only 
slight differences with respect to preferences in each of the three 











220 


AVERAGE 
NUMBER 
OF ROOMS 
PER PERSON 

2.0 


1.5 


1.0 


0.5 


0 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 32685 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 28.- Average number of rooms in house per person. 


NORTHERN 




SOUTHERN 

WHITE 







NEGRO 



i 


OWNERS i LABORERS 
TENANTS 


OWNERS ICROPPERSi 

RENTERS LABORERS 


OWNERS [CROPPERS | 

RENTERS LABORERS 



NORTHERN 
| Owners 


SOUTHERN WHITE 
Tenants 


NEGRO 
V//\ Laborers 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 


NEG. 32716 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 


Figure 29.- Percentages of informant families reporting no running 

WATER, KITCHEN SINK, OR INDOOR TOILET. 







































































































































































- 221 - 


sample population. This suggests that much the same standard of living 
prevails, regardless of tenure class, differences appearing largely in 
ability to achieve the desired standard. But what is desired as well as 
possessed differs strikingly between North and South, for the washing 
machine is the first choice in the North, while the sewing machine is 
just as decisively first choice in the South, among both whites and Ne¬ 
groes. 

Comparisons, accordingly, which evaluate levels of living in vari¬ 
ous parts of the country in terms of a single standard of living may be 
completely misleading, both in method and in implication. It would be 
no more absurd to point out, for instance, that one man has gone only 14 
miles to the north whereas another has gone 20 miles to the north, if 
the first man wanted to go northeast and may actually have gone as far 
in that direction as the second went to the north. Not until we have 
evidence as to what people want can the level of living of any one group 
be compared meaningfully with that of another group in terms of a single 
standard. In other words, a demonstration that Southern families more 
often possess one thing than Northern families, or that Northern fami¬ 
lies more often possess another thing than Southern families, in itself, 
proves little. 

1 Turning from items that are more or less utilitarian, let us take 

up some of the amenities of living: musical instruments, such as the 
phonograph, the piano, and the organ. In view of the overwhelming pre¬ 
ferences for the piano among Northern families, the tenure differences 
in possessions are signifiacnt: about one in seven laborers', three in 
seven renters', and four in seven owners' families have a piano. The 
fact that about one in five Northern families, regardless of tenure class, 
own a phonograph loses point when we see how few of them really prefer a 
phonograph to a piano. Among Northern farm families, the glory of the 
organ belongs to a vanished day. Few families have them and even fewer 
want them. In the South there are still housewives who prefer the organ 
to either the piano or the phonograph. They are in the minority, how¬ 
ever, for the piano is first in order of preference among Southern whites, 
and among Negro families the phonograph is the preferred instrument. 
Tenure differences with respect to preferences are inconsequential in the 
South, as they were in the North, but possessions again show owners to 
be the most fortunate, laborers the least fortunate, and tenants to occu¬ 
py an intermediate position. For every Southern white tenant family which 
reports a piano more than four owners' families report the same. The ten¬ 
ure difference is just as pronounced among Negro families, although Ne¬ 
groes as a whole possess far fewer pianos than do whites. Among Southern 
whites only the organ is possessed as frequently by tenants as by owners. 
Colored families report the possession of phonographs more frequently 
than either pianos or organs. This is true in each tenure class, which 
suggests that the expression of preference for the phonograph is not 
Simply an adjustment of desires to what is attainable. 






- 222 - 


In other words, it seems clear that we have here a difference 
between Negro and Southern white in standard of living, the piano serving 
to give the white household more pleasure or prestige than the phono¬ 
graph, while the latter instrument serves these purposes more satisfactor¬ 
ily in the case of the Negro family (Table 119), 


Table 119.- Percentages of families possessing phonograph, piano and or¬ 
gan; and percentages of housewives expressing preference 
for one of the three foregoing items 


Item : 

Owners 

• • 

• • 

: Tenants : 

Laborers 


Now have: 

Prefer 

; Now have: 

Prefer ; 

Now have:Prefer 

Northern: 










Total number of 










cases 


63 



61 



14 


Phonographs 

24 


8 

31 


15 

21 


7 

Pianos 

52 


84 

39 


80 

14 


93 

Organs 

6 


2 

3 


— 

— 


— 

Southern white: 










Total number of 










cases 


58 



72 



8 


Phonographs 

33 


24 

29 


19 

— 


37 

Pianos 

33 


52 

7 


60 

— 


50 

Organs 

10 


3 

11 


7 

— 


12 

Negro: 










Total number of 










cases 


34 



114 



19 


Phonographs 

26 


50 

18 


60 

5 


58 

Pianos 

6 


38 

1 


36 

— 


37 

Organs 

6 


6 

2 


3 

— 


5 


Telephone and radio serve to minimize the social isolation which 
usually accompanies the spatial isolation of the farm family. For this 
reason it is important to note the possession of one or the other, or 
both of these, and also the preference for the one or the other of these 
items. Regardless of region or race, the radio gets first preference. 
This is also true when tenure classes are compared, for in every in¬ 
stance owners, tenants, and laborers prefer the radio more frequently 
than the telephone. This preference is somewhat more marked among 
laborers in the North than among renters or owners, but tenure differ¬ 
ences among preferences in the South seem insignificant. 








- 223 - 




With respect to possessions, however, there are marked differences 
between tenure classes. Owners, almost without exception, more often 
report possession either of the radio or telephone. About three—fourths 
of Northern owners possess both, while tenants have less, and laborers 
the smallest proportion. Among Southern whites the telephone is avail¬ 
able to less than one in ten, even among owners, while tenants report it 
in about one case out of seven. The radio is reported much more often 
than the telephone, regardless of tenure class, but more tenants than 
laborers, and more owners than tenants possess the radio. In the case of 
colored families both telephone and radio are extremely rare, radios 
being reported by about one out of ten owners' families and about one in 
one hundred renters' families, while telephones are completely absent 
from the households of both tenure classes. Of the nineteen Negro labor¬ 
er families, one reports a telephone, while none have radios (Table 120). 

Table 120.- Percentages of families who report possession or availability 
for use of telephone and radio; and percentages of housewives who 
express preference for one of the foregoing two items 


Item 

• 

• 

• 

Owners : 

Tenants : 

Laborers 


Now have: 

Prefer : 

Now have: 

Prefer : 

Now have: 

Prefer 

Northern: 











Total number 

of 










cases 



63 



61 



14 


Telephone 


71 


48 

54 


44 

29 


29 

Radio 


78 


51 

72 


56 

43 


71 

Southern white 

; 










Total number 

Of 










cases 



58 



72 



8 


Telephone 


7 


17 

1 


18 

— 


25 

Radio 


41 


78 

29 


81 

12 


75 

Negro: 











Total number 

of 










cases 



34 



114 



19 


Telephone 


— 


35 

— 


25 

5 


32 

Radio 


9 


62 

1 


74 



68 


What sort of current reading material does the farm family read, 
and for which type is there the greatest preference? Some few tenure 
differences appear, especially with regard to periodicals received, ana 












- 224 - 


likewise there are certain differences between the three sample popula¬ 
tions. But with respect to preferences the daily newspaper clearly is 
the favorite among periodicals received, or if not received, it is the 
one type of periodical that is most preferred by farm families, regard¬ 
less of tenure, race, or region. In the North the tenant's family is 
slightly more likely than that of any other tenure class to receive 
daily newspapers, farm periodicals, women's periodicals, or children's 
periodicals. Only in the case of weekly newspapers and religious peri¬ 
odicals do owners' families report subscriptions more frequently than 
tenants. Regardless of type of publication, laborers' families are 
subscribers least often. Among Southern white families, the proportion 
receiving publications is least among laborers. But contrary to what was 
true in the North, more families of owners than of tenants receive daily 
newspapers and farm periodicals. Southern white farm owners more often 
receive religious periodicals than do tenants. In other words, it seems 
that the relative positions of tenants and owners in the North are prac¬ 
tically reversed in the South, more owners than tenants receiving current 
reading material in the South, but fewer owners than tenants in the North. 
In the case of colored farm families, owners proportionately receive 
daily newspapers, weekly newspapers, and farm periodicals much more often 
than do families in the other tenure classes. Religious periodicals, 
women's periodicals, and children's periodicals, on the other hand, are 
reported much more frequently by tenants' than by owners' families (Table 
121 ). 

Important both from an economic and from a social point of view 
are the means of transportation by which farm families are able to cut 
down the time and distance that separate them from their neighbors and 
from their trade centers. A consideration of this topic reveals minor 
tenure differences, but apparently more significant than these are the 
striking differences between the three sample populations. Tenure 
differences, most pronounced in the South, are more decided among Ne¬ 
groes than among whites. With regard to the proportion of Negro farm 
families reporting that they have no means of transportation - that 
they usually walk, in other words - this is found to be true of one out 
of three owners’ families, over half of tenants' families, and four out 
of five laborers' families. 

Taking up the ownership of automobiles, we find that colored farm 
owners report possession about twice as often as non-owners. Likewise, 
they own a buggy or wagon more frequently than either tenants or labor¬ 
ers. Among Southern whites the laborer family is most rarely able to 
afford an automobile, and is most often forced to v/alk. The differences 
between owners and tenants in this sample population, however, both with 
respect to the proportions who walk and the proportions who boast auto¬ 
mobiles, are insignificant; that is, the considerable difference between 
colored owners and tenants with respect to means of transportation report¬ 
ed does no 4- apply in the case of Southern white farm families. 




- 225 - 



Table S ieoified r typls 6 Tf pubHcat 63 ^ "f 0 * th3t they re S ularl y receive 
expressing preference for one of the specified types of 

publications 




Item 


Owners 


:Now have:Prefer 


Tenants 


Laborers 


Now have:Prefer:Now have:Prefer 



Northern: 

Total number of cases 
Newspapers: 

Daily newspapers 
Weekly newspapers 
Periodicals: 

Farm periodicals 
Religious periodicals 
Women's periodicals 
Children's periodicals 


63 


61 


Southern white: 


14 


89 

70 

97 

59 

79 

93 

75 

3 

66 

— 

29 


75 

— 

88 

2 

64 


21 

— 

20 

2 

7 

7 

49 

2 

56 

2 

14 

_ 

3 

— 

15 

_ 

__ 



Total number of cases 


58 



72 


ft 

Newspapers: 

Daily newspapers 

62 


47 

44 

37 

_ 

50 

Weekly newspapers 

28 


2 

35 

3 



Periodicals: 

Farm periodicals 

69 


14 

43 

11 

12 

12 

Religious periodicals 

22 


2 

14 

1 

_ . 


Women's periodicals 

29 


— 

33 

_ 

_ 

_ 

Children's periodicals 

7 


5 

4 

— 

12 

— 

Negro: 

Total number of cases 


34 



114 


19 

Newspapers: 

Daily newspapers 

29 


59 

8 

67 

16 

74 

Weekly newspapers 

18 


3 

2 

3 

— 

5 

Periodicals: 

Farm periodicals 

47 


21 

17 

16 

5 

16 

Religious periodicals 

3 


9 

1 

10 

5 

5 

Women's periodicals 

6 


3 

— 

4 

— 

5 

Children's periodicals 

— 


3 

— 

— 

— 

— 


In the North, contrary to what we find in the South, tenants least 
often report that they ordinarily walk, since almost without exception 
they possess automobiles. Strikingly different from their Southern col¬ 
leagues, Northern farm laborers report ownership of an automobile as 
often as do owners. Furthermore, they walk less than one-third as often 























- 226 - 


as white laborers in the South, and less than one-fifth as often as 
colored farm laborers. 

If the automobile were to be regarded as a true measure by which 
to gauge the level of living of American families, we should find North¬ 
ern farm families, regardless of tenure class, to have a higher level 
of living than Southern, and white families in the South a higher one 
than Negro families; we should find that Northern renters actually out¬ 
strip Northern owners with respect to level of living, but that Southern 
owners have a higher level of living than Southern tenants. Of course, 
we do not propose to simplify the problem to this extent. Nevertheless, 

Table 122.- Percentages of families who report specified usual means of 
transportation; and percentages of housewives expressing 
preference for one of specified means of 
transportation 1/ 


Item 

• 

• 

: Owners 

• 

• 

: Tenants 

Laborers 

:Now have: 

Prefer 

:Now have: 

Prefer 

Now have:Prefer 

Northern: 









Total number of 









cases 


63 



61 



14 

Automobile 

84 


90 

98 


100 

86 

100 

Buggy or wagon 

8 


6 

— 


— 

— 

— 

Horse or mule 

2 


— 

— 


— 

— 

— 

Two-wheel cart 

— 


— 

— 


— 

— 

— 

None (walk) 

6 


3 

2 


— 

14 

— 

Southern white: 









Total number of 









cases 


58 



72 



8 

Automobile 

48 


83 

47 


81 

25 

87 

Buggy or wagon 

28 


7 

19 


7 

— 

12 

Horse or mule 

2 


— 

1 


— 

— 

— 

Two-wheel cart 

— 


— 

4 


— 

— 

— 

None (walk) 

17 


3 

19 


1 

50 

— 

Negro; 









Total number of 









cases 


34 



114 



19 

Automobile 

21 


73 

7 


80 

10 

100 

Buggy or wagon 

32 


15 

24 


15 

— 

— 

Horse or mule 

3 


— 

3 


3 



Two-wheel cart 

3 


3 

2 


1 

MM 

_ 

None (walk) 

35 


6 

54 


1 

79 










- 


1/ Omitting percentages of those who did not report. 











- 227 - 


it must be admitted that whether one walks or rides, and, if the latter, 
how one rides, has real significance in view of the large majority of 
members in each tenure class expressing a preference for the automobile 
in comparison with other means of transportation. 

It may be pointed out that owners in the North somewhat less of¬ 
ten than non-owners express a preference for the automobile, which helps 
account for the fact that Northern owners possess fewer automobiles than 
do Northern tenants. Among Negroes, laborers most often want the auto¬ 
mobile, and owners express this preference least often. It is possible 
that this difference between owners' and non-owners' preferences is due 
to the fact that the owners are older, and therefore may have found it 
more difficult to learn how to drive a car (Table 122). 

Things to Make Use of 

The type of highway most commonly used by farm families, as in¬ 
dicated in chapter II, differs widely, between North and South, and 
differs considerably between whites and Negroes in the South. Now we 
wish to discover whether owners tend to have better highway facilities 
at their disposal than tenants or laborers, or whether the reverse is 
true. As a matter of fact, neither generalization applies. Colored 
farm families, regardless of tenure class, are considerably more likely 
than not to use an unimproved dirt road most frequently, while in the 
North, regardless of tenure class, most farm families are likely to live 
on one kind of improved road or another. Among whites, in the South, 
about two-thirds of owners most frequently make use of dirt roads, while 
this is true of less than one-half of tenants, and slightly over one- 
third of laborers. White owners in the South, in other words, are practi¬ 
cally no better off than Negro families, regardless of tenure status, with 
respect to the type of road at their disposal. Among Southern whites, 
both tenants' and laborers' families are apparently more likely than 
colored families, regardless of tenure class, to have access to improved 
roads (Fig. 30). 

How do tenure classes compare with respect to the various types 
of insurance they carry, and the relative frequency with which these 
types are carried? One might expect that owners, having investd in real 
estate, would be less likely than non-owners to ieel the need for the 
type of protection offered by life insurance. It is not surprising, 
therefore, to find that tenants in the North carry relatively more life 
insurance than owners. But in the South this is not the case, white 
owners carry more life insurance than do white tenants or laborers, while 
among Negroes, tenants carry insurance about one-third as frequently as 
do either owners or farm laborers. Life insurance, with one exception, 
is consistently the chosen type of protection. The one excepiton is 
found among Negro laborers in the South, who express a slightly greater 
preference for burial insurance than for life insurance. 





228 - 



tn 

o 


o 


o 

o 

Ul 


< 

cc 

o 


u 

cc 

o 

< 

U. 

O 

3 


> 

z 

o 

2 

2 

o 

o 

h- 

<0 

o 

2 


ui 

cc 

3 

CD 


tD 

00 

u> 

CO 

6 

Ui 


H 

a: 

o 

CL 

UJ 

CL 

• 

O Q 
X < 
£ O 
QC 

</) 

UJ H 

— tr 


— Q 


< W) 

u. — 


h- > 
z < 
< 5 
2 X 
CL (J 
O - 
u. I 
z 

- o 


Ui 

cc 


3 

o 

cc 

u> 

< 


o 


Ui 


u. _J 
O CD 
3 

CD CL 
UJ 

O Q 
< UJ 
I— 0) 
Z 3 
UJ 

o 

CL 

UJ 

CL 

I 

• 

O 

CO 

UJ 

(X 

3 

o 

L- 


UJ 

CJ 

CL 

UJ 

a. 


O 


O 

CD 


O o 

in -m- 


o o 

CO CM 


o 


o 


cc 

< 

a. 

ui 

a 

ui 

3 







































































- 229 - 


Table 123.- Percentages of families who report carrying specified types 
of insurance policies; and percentages of housewives who express 
preference for one of specified types of insurance 


Item 

• 

« 

: Owners 

• 

• 

Tenants 


Laborers 


:Now have’.Prefer: 

Now have: 

Prefer 

Now have:Prefer 

Northern: 

Total number of 

cases 

Types of insurance: 
Life 

63 

54 

35 

61 

69 

28 

43 

14 

79 

Burial 

2 

— 

7 

5 

— 

14 

Personal property 

76 

6 

87 

25 

36 

7 

Automobile 

49 

9 

51 

— 

14 

— 

Farm buildings 

84 

32 

26 

5 

— 

— 

Crops 

6 

2 

10 

— 

— 

— 


Southern white; 

Total number of 
cases 

Types of insurance: 
Life 
Burial 

Personal property 
Automobile 
Farm buildings 
Crops 

Negro: 

Total number of 
cases 

Types of insurance; 
Life 
Burial 

Personal property 
Automobile 
Farm buildings 
Crops 



58 


72 


8 


47 

17 

5 

9 

21 

3 


50 

2 


31 69 25 87 

11 6 25 


3 

3 


3 2 25 

I'¬ 
ll- 


34 H4 


19 


29 

47 

6 

6 

12 


47 

29 

9 

6 

3 

6 


11 69 31 47 

44 22 37 53 

1 1 


1 3 


; 



With respect to other kiaJSto’JbOM 
“ween P traure ^MsVsTithinthe sample populations^ The frequency with 

a srz ss 







- 230 - 


the other sample populations. Among white families, on the other hand, 
the frequency with which personal property, automobile, and farm build¬ 
ing insurance is carried in the North distinguishes the farmers in this 
area from white farmers in the South. The difference between owners 
and tenants with respect to insurance carried on farm buildings is large 
but not surprising. However, while owners in the North insure farm 
buildings about three times as often proportionally as do tenants, this 
tenure difference among Southern whites is even greater, for in the lat¬ 
ter sample population there are about fifteen owners who carry such in¬ 
surance to one tenant who does the same. Negro owners, furthermore, 
carry insurance on farm buildings about one-seventh as often as do North¬ 
ern owners, and one-half as often as Southern white owners, while no 
Negro tenants report farm-building insurance. 

In summary we may say that; while tenure differences are to be 
found with regard to type and frequency of insurance reported, they 
appear to be less notable than the differences between the three sample 
populations (Table 123). 

Things to Avoid if Possible 

Some idea of the relative economic condition of the various tenure 
classes may be gained from a comparison of the proportions reporting mort¬ 
gage indebtedness. Among owners, of Course, the mortgage usually is on 
land. Landlords, among white farmers, both North and South, on this basis 
are in the best economic situation: fewer of them than of either full or 
part-owners report mortgages on land. Nevertheless, a full one-third 
of landlords report mortgage indebtedness on their farm land. Fewer 
colored part-owners report mortgages on land than do farmers in any other 
owning category among Negroes (21 percent), while among white owning class¬ 
es. both North and South, part-owners report by far the largest propor¬ 
tions of mortgages on land (Table 124). 


Table 124.- Percentages of owners who report mortgage indebtedness 

on farm land owned 


Item 


Northern : 

Southern white : 


Neero 

Total 

:Percentages: 

: reporting : 

: mortgage 

Total 

:Percentages: 

: reporting : 

: mortgage : 

Total 

:Percentages 
: reporting 
: mortgage 

Landlords 

110 

33 

195 

34 

32 

41 

Full owners 

149 

53 

162 

41 

77 

41 

Part-owners 

96 

60 

41 

56 

19 

21 













- 231 - 


Mortgages on crops and/or livestock are reported most rarely by 
Northern owners, and most often by colored renters, there being about 
seven of the latter to one of the former. Comparing tenure classes in 
the three sample populations we find that more are found reporting this 
type of mortgage among Negroes than among Southern whites in each re¬ 
spective tenure class, and more among Southern whites than in each re¬ 
spective tenure class in the North. On this basis the economic condi¬ 
tion of renters in each sample population might be regarded as worst, 
and of owners as best. But these differences might also be regarded as 
less significant than the hierarchy of economic well-being represented 
by the three sample populations (Table 125). 




Table 125.- Percentages of farmers reporting crop and/or live¬ 
stock mortgages 


Items 

Total number of cases 

: Percentages reporting 
: mortgage 

Northern: 

All owners 

355 

9 

Renters 

247 

26 

Southern white: 

All owners 

398 

19 

Renters 

275 

43 

Croppers 

168 

20 

Negro: 

All owners 

128 

36 

Renters 

253 

62 

Croppers 

372 

55 


What the Farm Provides 

How do the tenure classes compare with respect to size of gross 
income? Among Northern farmers the highest median gross income is re¬ 

ported by part-owners, for whom the figure is practically $2,000. Pull 
owners report a median gross income of about $1,700. For unrelated 
renters the figure is about $1,450, and for related renters it is about 
$1,300. Landlords report a gross income practically the same as 
of related renters. Laborers report by far the smallest gross incomes, 

about $400. 

Among Southern whites the largest gross income is reported by 
landlords rather than by part-owners, as was the case in th °^ ' or 

landlords the figure is about $800; for full owners, less: than $500; for 
renters, $400. The figure for croppers is also around $o50, while 

laborers it is less than $250. 













- 232 - 


Table 126.- Median gross income by tenure class 


Sample population 

: Total number 

: 

Median 

and tenure status 

reporting 

• 

income 


Northern: 


Landlords 


110 

$1,328 

Full owners 


149 

1,639 

Part-owners 


96 

1,937 

Related renters 


67 

1,323 

Unrelated renters 


180 

1,462 

Related croppers 


10 

1,500 

Unrelated croppers 


6 

937 

Related laborers 


9 

450 

Unrelated laborers 


60 

403 

Southern white: i 

Landlords 


182 1/ 

$733 

Full owners 


156 

450 

Part-owners 


41 

666 

Related renters 


59 

381 

Unrelated renters 


209 

406 

Related croppers 


35 

333 

Unrelated croppers 


63 

358 

Related laborers 


5 

216 

Unrelated laborers 


44 

226 

Negro: 

Landlords 


32 1/ 

$500 

Full owners 


76 

327 

Part-owners 


18 

500 

Related renters 


18 

175 

Unrelated renters 


229 

329 

Related croppers 


18 

187 

Unrelated croppers 


334 

237 

Related laborers 


2 

150 

Unrelated laborers 


79 

163 

1/ Discrepancies between 

tenure 

totals in this 

table and totals as 

given in the Appendix are 

due to 

the fact that some informants failed 


to give gross income information. 


Among Negroes the largest median gross income, about $500, appears 
both for landlords and for part-owners, while full owners and unrelated 
renters likewise report figures above the median for all Negro farmers 
(the figure being about $325). The lowest median gross income is that of 
related laborers, being only $150. 







- 233 - 


It may be said, by way of summary, that the gross income of part- 
owners is well above the median figure in each sample population, being 
highest of all tenure classes in the North and one of the two highest 
among Negroes. Landlords report the largest gross incomes in the South, 
both among whites and Negroes, while in the North the gross income is 

( much larger for full owners than for landlords. Related renters receive 
gross incomes lower than, while both Northern and Negro unrelated renters 
receive gross incomes higher than, the median figures for their respec¬ 
tive sample populations. The gross income of laborers is lower than that 
of any other tenure class among whites, either North or South; among Ne- 

I groes, laborers, related croppers, and related renters receive about the 
same lowermost figure (Table 126). 

I A crude but effective measure of what the farm provides in the 

way of produce which may contribute to farm family's living, is the pro¬ 
portion in each tenure class reporting possession of 100 or more chick¬ 
ens. Tenure differences, while present, are dwarfed by the disparities 
existing between sample populations. Eighty-six percent of Northern 
renters, and 80 percent of Northern owners report owning 100 or more 
chickens, while less than 20 percent of Southern white owners or renters, 
and less than 5 percent of Negro owners or renters had as many. Although 
the proportions of croppers and laborers reporting a flock of chickens of 
this size are fewer in each sample population than owners or renters, 
the Northern tenure class reporting the fewest in this category (laborers) 
still contains a higher proportion than does the highest ranking tenure 
classes in the South, 

« Furthermore, the lowest tenure class among Southern whites (labor¬ 

ers) again has a larger proportion in this category than does the highest 
among Negro farmers. Although no one will maintain that this measure is 
the most significant that can be used to compare contribution of the farm 
to family living, nevertheless it would seem to point to differences in 
the fundamental patterns of farming as carried on in the three sample 
populations which make for differences in the level of living. The North¬ 
ern farmer can eat his chickens when he does not want to sell them, 
but the Cotton Belt farmer can neither eat nor make use of his cotton in 
any other way if low prices deter him from selling it (Table 127). 

A measure that discriminates more clearly between tenure classes 
in the South is one that involves the possession of 1 or more dairy cat¬ 
tle, 1 or more hogs, and 5 or more chickens. Southern laborers, on this 
basis, white as well as colored, report possession of all three items 
in only about 10 percent of all cases, but these possessions are reported 
by 35 percent of the white croppers, 38 percent of the colored croppers, 
65 percent of the white owners, 68 percent of the colored renters, 73 
percent of the white renters, and, most frequently of all, by 77 percent 
of the colored owners. At the other end of the scale of possession, 43 
'percent of the white laborers, and 35 percent of the colored laborers 
report having none of the three items considered, while this is true 
of only 9 percent of croppers, either white or colored, and of insignifi- 







- 234 - 


Table 127.- Percentages of farmers who report owning one hundred 

or more chickens 


Sample population 
and tenure status 

: Total 

: number 

: of cases 

: Percentages 
: reporting 
; chickens 

Northern: 



Owners 

355 

79.2 

Renters 

247 

85.8 

Croppers 

16 

56.3 

Laborers 

69 

27.5 

Southern white: 



Owners 

398 

18.6 

Renters 

275 

18.9 

Croppers 

168 

7.7 

Laborers 

53 

5.7 

Negro: 



Owners 

128 

4.7 

Renters 

253 

2.4 

Croppers 

372 

2.0 

Laborers 

89 

1.1 


cant proportions of members of the higher tenure classes. A full one- 
third of the white croppers report possession of hogs and cattle only, 
while this is true of only one-fourth of colored croppers. Laborers among 
both white and colored farmers, more frequently possess chickens only 
than do the members of any other tenure class. In summary, this compari¬ 
son shows the various tenure classes to be relatively better off in this 
respect as we climb the agricultural ladder (Table 128) . 

As the final comparison of this sort, the proportions in the vari¬ 
ous tenure classes who report having one or more head of dairy cattle may 
be presented. In each sample population there are fewer such farm labor¬ 
ers than members of any other tenure class, and more such white renters 
and Negro owners than members of other tenure classes (Table 129). 37/ 

The Farm as a Productive Plant 

The farm is the farmer's factory, and, other things being equal - 
which they are frequently not - the size of his factory has much to do 


37/ It seems probable that the inclusion of town-dwelling landlords is 
responsible for the fact that around one-fourth of white owners report 
owning no dairy cattle. 










- 235 - 



Table 128. Percentages of Southern farmers who report possession 

of cattle, hogs, and chickens 


• 

• 

Total : 


Percentages Reoortinff 


Sample population: 
and tenure status: 

number : 
reporting : 

None 

: Chickens 

: Hogs and :Cattle, hogs, 

: cattle :and chickens 

Southern white: 

Owners 

398 

3 

2 

14 

65 

Renters 

275 

2 

3 

8 

73 

Croppers 

168 

9 

11 

33 

33 

Laborers 

53 

43 

21 

7 

11 

Negro: 

Owners 

128 

1 

2 

8 

77 

Renters 

253 

1 

2 

17 

68 

Croppers 

372 

9 

9 

24 

38 

Laborers 

89 

35 

17 

27 

10 


Table 129.- 

Percentages of 
head 

farmers who report 
of dairy cattle 

owning one or more 

Sample population 

:Total number:Percentages reporting 

and 

tenure status 

of cases : 

dairy cattle 

Northern: 

Owners 


355 

73.0 

Renters 


263 

87.1 

Croppers 


— 

— 

Laborers 


69 

20.3 

Southern white: 

Owners 


398 

77.4 

Renters 


275 

84.4 

Croppers 


168 

47.6 

Laborers 


53 

24.5 

Negro: 

Owners 


128 

85.9 

Renters 


253 

77.9 

Croppers 


372 

52.4 

Laborers 


89 

15.7 


















- 236 - 




v/ith its output and the farmer's income. Although many other factors 
are important, the average acreages farmed by members of the various ten¬ 
ure classes are worth considering. Comparing the respective tenure 
classes, the average figure in the North is larger than that in the South, 
and in the South, similarly, the figure is larger for whites than for 
Negroes. Part-owners in each sample population are farming the largest 
acreages. Southern croppers report smallest acreages, while for Northern 
croppers the figure is much larger than for full owners, being practical¬ 
ly the same as for renters. Full owners in the North report the smallest 
acreage, while in the South their acreage figures rank higher than those 
for renters or croppers. 

Possibly even more significant, from the point of view of making 
a living, is the comparison of crop acreages. On this basis the rela¬ 
tive differences between Negro and white farms in the South are diminished 
considerably, although the acreages of the latter remain roughly twice as 
large, on the average, as those of the former. The comparison on this 
basis leaves the ranking among Northern and Negro tenure classes practi¬ 
cally unchanged. Among Southern white farmers, however, when crop acres 
alone are considered, renters are found to work larger acreages than do 
full owners, but part-owners still report the largest, and croppers the 
smallest, figures (Table 130). 


Table 130.- Average total and crop acreages per farm 


Sample population 
and tenure status 

: Total 
: number 
: of cases 

:Average: 

: total : 

:acreage: 

Average 

crop 

acreage 

Northern: 

Full owners 

149 

133 

85 

Part-owners 

96 

231 

155 

enters 

247 

169 

121 

-roppers 

16 

172 

125 

Southern white: 

Full owners 

162 

121 

65 

Part-owners 

41 

156 

104 

Renters 

275 

117 

81 

Croppers 

168 

45 

32 

Negro: 

Full owners 

77 

47 

32 

Part-owners 

19 

57 

40 

Renters 

253 

40 

32 

Croppers 

372 

27 

21 









- 237 - 


Appendix 

THE TENURE CLASSES COMPARED 

It might seem easy to distinguish between a farmer and a man who is 
not a farmer, but when you begin talking with the men on farms you find 
that there are many confusing and perplexing situations. Probably you 
would turn for assistance to the census definitions of "farm" and "farm 
operator," even though these definitions are not for all purposes the 
best that could be made. In fact, some census concepts are, for our 
usage, so broadly defined that they lose most of their significance. 
But by employing these official definitions we are at least in a posi¬ 
tion to learn how our data compare with official census data. This is 
an important advantage for, regardless of the limitations of such data, 
they are still by far the most comprehensive measurements of con¬ 
temporary society that we have. 58/ 


38/ The following definitions are quoted from the volumes of the Census 
of Agriculture, 1935: 




A "farm," for census purposes, is all the land which is directly 
farmed by one person, either by his own labor alone or with the 
assistance of members of his household, or hired employees. 

A "farm operator," according to the census definition, is a per¬ 
son who operates a farm, either performing the labor himself or 
directly supervising it. Therefore, the number of farm operators 
is identical with the number of farms. 

Farm operators are classified into three general classes accord¬ 
ing to the tenure under which they operate their farms, as follows: 

1. Owners own all or part of the land which they operate. 
Separate figures are shown for two types of owners, namely, full 
owners and part-owners. Full owners own all of the land they 
operate. Part-owners own a part and rent from others the rest of 
the land they operate. 

2. Managers operate farms for others and receive wages or sala¬ 
ries for their services. Persons acting merely as caretakers or 
hired as laborers are not classified as managers. 

3. Tenants operate hired or rented land only, Figures ior the 
Southern States cover two classes of tenants - croppers and other 
tenants. Croppers are defined as share tenants, the principal 
distinguishing feature of the tenure being that the work animals 
are furnished by the landlord. Other tenants comprise all those 
who rent under other conditions or types oi agieement. 





- 238 - 


Probably the most unsatisfactory feature of the census definitions 
is that they fail to take any account of the degree of independence of the 
farmer. For example, the rich 40-acre bottom-land "farm" worked by a 
sharecropper, ploughed, planted, cultivated, and harvested according to 
the landlord's instructions and under his own or his representative's 
supervision, although it is really only one unit in a much larger agri¬ 
cultural "plant," is defined and counted by the census as a separate 
"farm." The cropper himself is defined and counted as a "farmer." In the 
barren hills not so many miles away lives a farm owner who takes orders 
from no one - ploughing, planting, cultivating, harvesting, and selling 
according to his own best judgment. He is counted as another farmer, and 
his place is reported as a farm unit along with each of the 5 to 100 
units included in a single Delta plantation. From one point of view any 
enumeration of manufacturing establishments which regarded every machine 
tender as a "manufacturer" and every machine as a "factory" would probably 
be considered nonsense. As figures of speech go, the comparisons of fac¬ 
tory with plantation, and of manufacturer with real farm operator, repre¬ 
sent no serious exaggeration. In any significant sense the typical plant¬ 
ation is a single farming unit, regardless of the number of small tracts 
into which it may be broken for operating purposes; and it is run by a 
single authority, regardless of the number of wage hands or croppers who 
may be living upon it. 

From another point of view, however, the most menial member of the 
plantation staff is strictly comparable not only with the owner or tenant 
who independently operates his place, but with the plantation owner him¬ 
self; both are human beings who are born, reared, go to school, leave 
home, marry, rear children, and eventually pass on to their final rewards. 
Landlord and cropper, owner and renter, all are social beings who are 
members of groups and participants in social relationships of various 
types from earliest childhood until the end of life. It is largely from 
this social point of view, the approach of the sociologist, that we 
tackle our problem. And for this reason we do not hesitate to make com¬ 
parisons which, if this manner of thinking about people and how they be¬ 
have is unfamiliar, may strike you as illogical. 

In outline form, the various categories that we shall utilize are 
as follows: 

I. Owner 

A. Landlord 

B. Full owner 

C. Part-owner 

II. Non-owner 

A. Tenant 

1. Renter 

2. Sharecropper or cropper 

B. Farm laborer, or wage hand 



- 239 - 


The census definition of "farm" has been adhered to simply as a 
basis for comparing the amounts of land held or operated by the various 
tenure classes. But the general tenure categories of the census are too 
broad to be useful in our study. Accordingly, farm land "owners" have 
been subdivided into three classes: (1) the "landlord" rents to others 
enough agricultural land to constitute a farm, and it is immaterial wheth¬ 
er or not he himself lives in the open country or operates additional 

I land; (2) the "full owner" operates only the farm land which he himself 
owns and he rents none of his holdings to others; (3) the "part-owner" 
owns some farm land, rents additional farm land from others, and operates 
any part or all of the farm land he owns and rents. To be classified as 
a landlord a man needs merely to own farm land — he need not operate an 
acre of it. To be regarded as either a full owner, or a part-owner, 
however, he must actually operate a farm. The term "owner" may be used 
occasionally to designate only the "full owners" rather than all three 
types of owners, especially when comparisons are being made between land¬ 
lord, full owner, and part-owner. This liberty is taken for the sake of 

I simplicity, and should cause no confusion, for the context shows whether 
the broader or narrower meaning of the term is involved. A further 
justification for this practice is found in the fact that writers and 
speakers on the subject of farm tenancy generally have in mind the "full 
owner" when they talk about "ownership" as the most desirable tenure 
status. 

We are contrasting the broad category of "owner" with the category 
of "non-owner," but for our purposes "non-owner" includes not only ten¬ 
ants of all types but farm laborers. The degree of independence exercised 

t by the typical farm laborer does not differ significantly from that 
exercised by many a sharecropper. Furthermore, the farm laborer represents 
the bottom rung, or first step, on the agricultural ladder and, there¬ 
fore, should be included in any attempt to give a complete picture of the 
agricultural ladder and its functioning. Census usage has been followed 
with respect to the definitions of "tenant" and of "sharecropper," but 
"renter" for our purposes includes all tenants other than sharecroppers. 
A "farm laborer" receives payment for his services in the form of 
wages, and he works under the direct supervision of his employer, dif¬ 
fering in the latter respect from the manager. Inasmuch as managers con¬ 
stitute a very small proportion of all farmers they have been excluded 
from consideration entirely. 


A third classification, within the category of non-owner, one which 
we use because of its importance from a social point of view, is based 
upon kinship of the non-owner to his landlord or employer. This classi¬ 
fication is as follows: 

III. Non-owner 

A. Related non-owner (Relative is landlord or employer) 



1. Related tenant 








- 240 - 


a. Related renter 

b. Related sharecropper or cropper 

2. Unrelated farm laborer, laborer, or wage hand 

Again following census usage, the landlord or employer is considered 
as a relative if he is one of the following: the farmer's or the farmer's 
wife's parent, grandparent, brother, or sister. For some purposes, only 
the two broad categories, related non-owner and unrelated non-owner, are 
compared. For other purposes, when the sub-groups are large enough, the 
comparisons involve related and unrelated renters, croppers, and farm 
laborers, 

We use the general term "farmer" to mean all heads of families 
whom we interviewed, regardless of tenure or sex (5.1 percent of the total 
being women), including some individuals in the landlord category who were 
not actually living on a farm (3.9 percent of the total) and a very few 
landlords who were neither operating nor working on a farm (1.3 percent of 
the sample). 


- 241 - 


DEFINITIONS OF TERMS 


The terms "Corn Belt farmers" and "Northern farmers" are used 
practically interchangeably to refer to those men and women who supplied 
information from the Corn Belt States. 

Southern white farmers" include all of the white informants inter¬ 
viewed in the Cotton Belt, together with a small number from the tobacco 
area in northeastern North Carolina. 

"Southern Negro farmers," "colored farmers," or "Negro farmers" 
refer to all Negro informants, these being scattered throughout the 
South, with the exception of Collin County, Texas, and Beckham County, 
Oklahoma, where they formed too small a proportion of the total farm 
population to justify inclusion. 

"Regional and racial comparisons" are those comparisons made 
between the Northern and Southern white sample groups or between whites 
and Negroes in the South, or, rarely, between Northern white and Southern 
farmers. The general term "sample population" is employed to refer to the 
three regional-racial groups discussed separately above. 


The term "local area" signifies the specific territory investi¬ 
gated by the field workers on this study, each local area consisting of 
one or more townships, beats, wards, or other minor civil divisions in 
the various counties mentioned earlier in this chapter. Four "local 
areas" were studied in the North and ten in the South. Of the latter, 
two involved white informants only and eight involved white and Negro 
informants in the ratio that white and Negro tenants contributed to the 
total farm population in the respective counties. 




You will recall an earlier reference (p. 3) to the need for a 
schedule to keep the questions asked and the answers secured as nearly 
comparable as possible. It was found that inclusion in a single schedule 
of all the questions to which answers were desired would have resulted 
either in too slow progress or in interviewing too few farmers to obtain 
a sample of the desired size. Therefore, from the total schedule, known 
as the "long schedule," certain question were selected to form a "short 
schedule." 



242 



0 . 6 % 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 32620 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 31 .- Percentage distribution of Northern farmers by tenure. 



PART 

OWNERS 

5.2% 


MANAGERS 

0.3% 


SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE. I9SB 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 32621 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 32 .- Percentage distribution of Cotton Belt farmers by tenure. 












FULL 

OWNERS 


40 . 9 % 


CROPPERS 

14 . 5 % . 


[FULL 

OWNERS 

13 . 4 % 


ALL OTHER 
TENANTS 

33 . 0 % 


CROPPERS. 

: 50 . 6 % 


SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE. 1936 


0 . 4 % 
















ALL OTHER 
TENANTS 


37 . 8 % 


MANAGERS 


U. S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 


NEG.32622 


BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 


Figure 33 .- Percentage o i str i Qut i on of white Cotton Belt farmers by tenure. 




PART OWNERS 

3 . 0 % 

MANAGERS 

0% 


SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE. 1936 


----- "NEG 32623 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ficure 34 .- Percentage distribution of Negro Cotton Belt farmers by tenure. 

























- 244 - 


METHODOLOGY 

In view of the wide range of data desired and the limited time 
available for securing all the information, it was thought best to se¬ 
cure a sample within the sample. Accordingly, after the schedule form 
had been agreed upon, those sections which seemed most likely to yield 
significantly novel findings were combined into what was known as the 
"Short Schedule," comprising the first six pages of the "Long Schedule." 
This Short Schedule represented the minimum information to be secured 
from each family enumerated. The remaining sections of the schedule 
taken together with the Short Schedule comprised the Long Schedule, 
which was to be used in cases selected at random from 20 percent of the 
total sample. 

To assure representativeness of the Long Schedule sample with 
respect to the Short Schedule sample, instructions were given to field 
workers that every fifth schedule taken was to be a Long Schedule re¬ 
gardless of the tenure or other characteristics of the family encoun¬ 
tered. On the basis of comparisons made between these two groups with 
respect to tenure, informant's age, education, gross income, and dura¬ 
tion of farm occupancy, it is safe to say that the Long Schedule popu¬ 
lation is fairly representative of the Short Schedule population. 

It was estimated that about 2,700 schedules could be secured within 
the time limits imposed and the funds available. Type of farming was 
decided upon as the basis for determining the extent of the areas to be 
sampled. It was agreed, furthermore, that the sample taken should be 
confined to those types of farming areas which contributed most heavily, 
both relatively and absolutely, to agricultural tenantry. The Cotton 
Belt and the Corn Belt being thus automatically selected, it was later 
determined that a single local area should be secured from the Flue-cured 
Tobacco Area in the southeastern States. Lists of counties which con¬ 
stitute the Cotton Belt, the Corn Belt, and the Flue-cured Tobacco Re¬ 
gions were made up. 39/ 

The number of farm operators, white and colored, by tenure (full 
owners, managers, croppers, and other tenants) as given in the 1935 Census 
of Agriculture data, were then determined county by county so that the 
total number in each tenure class by race was determined for each of the 
three type-of-farming areas involved (Fig. 35). 

Inasmuch as the central problem was one of tenantry rather than 
of farm tenure generally, it was decided to secure the schedules in ac¬ 
cordance with the distribution of all tenants. On this basis 25.8 percent 


39/ The basis for the classification of the counties was the mimeographed 
"Lists of County Names by Type of Farming Areas" prepared by the Division 
of Program Planning of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. 
























246 - 


of the total 2,700 schedules (6S7) were allotted to the Corn Belt. In 
the South it was decided to deal with the two races separately, and to 
secure schedules from Negroes and from white operators proportionately 
to the numbers of Negro and white tenants and croppers in the entire 
region. On this basis 40.1 percent of the total number of schedules 
(1,083) were to be secured from white farmers, and 30.2 percent (815) 
from Negro farmers. 

The total number of schedules to be taken in the Tobacco Area, 
following the same principle, would have been 105, or 3.9 percent of 
the total number of schedules. Because this number was regarded as 
somewhat small for adequate representation of a single local area, the 
total number of schedules to be taken from the Tobacco Area was raised 
to 150. This expansion, that is 45 schedules, was compensated for by 
a corresponding reduction in the total number to be taken in the Cotton 
Belt, thus not affecting the total number of schedules to be taken in 
the South. 

The method of distributing the ascertained number of schedules 
throughout the various States and sub-regions included in the areas to 
be investigated may now be taken up. The problem was treated in the 
Corn Belt in a purely arbitrary manner, the total number being simply 
divided by the number of local area samples to be taken (four), thus 
allotting 174 schedules per local area. 

In the Corn Belt, however, it was thought necessary to take into 
consideration the marked differences between the southeastern and the 
southwestern sub-regions. Since the boundaries of the latter area could 
be placed most conveniently by following State lines, Oklahoma and 
Texas were set apart for treatment as a separate unit. Accordingly, 
the proportion of white and colored tenants and croppers reported within 
this unit as compared with the entire Cotton Belt was determined, with 
the result that 15.4 percent (416) and 3.4 percent (92) of the total 
number of Cotton Belt schedules were to be taken from white and Negro 
farmers respectively in this area. 

Within the remaining Cotton Belt States it was thought practic¬ 
ally impossible to develop quickly a satisfactory, objective method of 
allocating the shcedules to be taken. In order to give proper weight 
to the various types of sociologically homogeneous areas to be investi¬ 
gated, it was necessary to go beyond readily available census data. As 
the simplest solution, if not the most desirable, the total number of 
schedules to be taken was divided by the total number of local areas to 
be studied. This procedure led to the allotment of 224 schedules for 
each of six local areas in the southeastern States, including Louisiana 
and Arkansas. Within each local area or sample rural community, the 
number of schedules to be taken from Negroes and from whites varied 


- 247 - 



according to their numbers in the total tenantry of the county involved. 
Within each State from which schedules were taken the selection of the 
county and township to be studied was left as largely as possible to the 
judgment of the proper State Agricultural Experiment Station officials 
and staff members. In each case the objectives of the study were ex¬ 
plained as fully as possible and an opportunity was given for specifying 
the county and minor civil division to be investigated. The criteria 
suggested as a basis for the making of such selections are as follows: 


1. The local area should be representative of a significant 
portion of the Cotton Belt as a whole. 


2. It should have not less than, and preferably considerably 
above, the average proportion of tenantry. 


3. It should be homogeneous as far as possible with respect to 
general agricultural conditions. 



4. The minor civil division should be entirely within the sphere 
of influence of a single trade center or community: if not 
the specified number of schedules preferably should be se¬ 
cured within some portion of the minor civil division entire¬ 
ly within the sphere of influence of a single community. 

5. The local area selected should not be one which had recently 
been studied because of the possible biasing influence of 
such previous investigations. 

6. It was desired to secure the schedules from areas which in 
general had lower proportions of part-time farmers than the 
average. 


7, It was hoped that the local areas selected would be almost 
completely open country in order to avoid in general the in¬ 
fluence of neighboring urban conditions. 


Where specific suggestions from Experiment Station officials were 
not received in time to permit the most rapid completion of the work, 
another procedure was used. Special census data by minor civil divisions 
were secured for each of the counties agreed upon. On the basis of these 
tabulations, it was possible to determine in advance whether or not a 
particular minor civil division contained at least the minimum number of 
operators, white and colored, and to determine whether the proportions of 
part-time farmers, tenants and croppers, whites and Negroes, were suit¬ 
able. Hence, it was possible to make tenative selections before actually 
entering the field, but final selection was not made until there had been 
first-hand local examination to make sure that no undesirable disturbing 

factors were present. 









- 248 - 


The list of States, counties, and minor civil divisions in which 
schedules were taken is as follows: 


Type-of-Farmine Area 


Minor Civil 

Race of In* 

and State 

County 

Division 

formants 

Corn Belt 




Illinois 

McLean 

Randolph Township 

W 

Iowa 

Jones 

Wyoming and Jackson 

W 



Townships 


Missouri 

Gentry 

Jackson Township 

w 

Ohio 

Mercer 

Black Creek Township 

w 

Cotton Belt 


• 


Alabama 

Hale 

Beats 5 and 9 

W & N 

Arkansas 

Jefferson 

Melton Township 

W & N 

Louisiana 

Red River 

Wards 4 and 6 

W & N 


Parish 



North Carolina 

Union 

Sandy Ridge 

W & N 

Oklahoma 

Beckham 

Sayre and adjacent 

W 



Townships 


South Carolina 

Greenville 

Gantt Township 

W & N 

Tennessee 

Crockett 

District 10 

W & N 

Texas 

Collin 

Precinct 6 

W 

Texas 

Nacogdoches 

Precincts 1 and 6 

W & N 

Flue-cured Tobacco 




North Carolina 

Wilson 

Toisnot Township 

W & N 


The present study, because of its emphasis upon subjective data, 
involves a much more serious problem with respect to the personal inter¬ 
action involved between interviewer and informant than is usually the 
case. In other words, it was evident from the outset that great care 
would have to be taken to guarantee sincerity of response on the part of 
the farmers if the data were to be regarded as at all useful. According¬ 
ly, it was determined that Negro enumerators exclusively should be employed 
for taking schedules from Negro farmers and white enumerators exclusively 
from white farmers. 

To assure the smoothest operation of this bi-racial field organ¬ 
ization, it was necessary to secure competent Negro supervisors of the 
field work. This plan was followed with what is believed were completely 
gratifying results. 

Cooperation between colored and white crews, colored and white 
supervisors, between local officials both white and colored and field 
representatives, was thoroughly satisfactory. 












- 249 - 


EVALUATION OF SAMPLE 

The foregoing description indicates the method whereby the total 
planned number of schedules, 2,700, was to have been taken. Certain 
deviations from these plans subsequently became necessary, because of 
the abnormally heavy rainfall throughout most of the Southeast during the 
winter of 1936-37. 

The most serious deviation from the planned distribution of sched¬ 
ules occurred in the case of white operators in the South. But it is not 
thought that any serious difficulty of interpretation should arise because 
of this discrepancy. The chief objective of this study is not the repre¬ 
sentation of regional or racial groups as components of a larger totality, 
but rather the comparison of tenure classes within and between regional and 
racial groups. Accordingly, the net result of under-representation on the 
part of whites is merely a smaller base on which to make comparisons be¬ 
tween Cotton Belt whites and other groups. 

To ascertain the representativeness of the sample with respect to 
tenure classes, the following procedure was undertaken. 

First, the cases were classified with respect to proportion of time 
spent in farming, that is, full-time farmers, part-time farmers, and 
those who owned land but spent no time as farm operators. The total num¬ 
ber of individuals in this last category in the Corn Belt was thirteen, or 
1.9 percent of the total. Among Southern whites it was eighteen or 2 
percent, and among Negroes there were none. 

In the editing process, a small proportion of the total number of 
schedules taken had been rejected. These included schedules taken from 
farm managers, from family laborers, that is, unpaid heads of families 
working for parents, and a small number of informants who weie neither 
farm operators nor operators of farm land, at least not of enough to 
justify their designation as farmers in conformity with the Census defi¬ 
nition. The total number of schedules rejected was 49 or 2 percent of the 
total number taken, which was 2,472. 

Second, for purposes of comparison, farm laborers were excluded 
from the computation inasmuch as these are not included among farm oper¬ 
ators in the Census data. This reduces the number of cases in the Corn 
Belt to 606, to 823 among Southern whites, and to 753 among the Negroes. 
The percentage distribution of sample and statistical universe are simi¬ 
lar, but there is a consistent tendency for slight over-representation 
among the farm-owning groups and under-representation among the non¬ 
owning groups (Fig. 36). 








250 



LU UJ CO 

T CQ t 

h- z 

cr * 

oR 


O LU 
cr 


LU 0 

°E 

£ < 

CD 



< 

CO 


UJ 



z m 


ct z 



h- o 

ID O 

o ~ 

CO 


O 

CO 

CO 


LU 

cr 

3 


LU (_) 

°E 

IS ° 
00 < 
CD 


LU 

_l 

Q_ 

s 

< 

CO 


o 

or 

CD 

UJ 


o 

o 


O LU 

to£ 


UJ 

ffi 


CO 

LU 

U 

ID 

CO 

CD 


U 

cn 

o 

< 



co 

u 

s 

o 

z 

o 

o 

UJ 


< 

cc 

3 


3 

u 


cc 

o 

< 


o 

3 

< 

UJ 

cc 


m 


o> 

to 

<M 

CO 

o 

UJ 

z 


_J 

< • 

CD UJ 

- _J 
h- Ql 
CO 5 

— < 
»- CO 
< 

K Z 

CO — 

2 Q 

— 2 

< 

CO 

a: * 

o UJ 

h- cc 

< 3 
CC. (- 
UJ _J 

a. d 
c o 

2 cr 
o: o 

< < 
u. 

u. 

u. o 
o 

co 

2 3 
O CO 
- 2 
h- UJ 

3 O 
CD 

- m 

x CO 
H CO 
CO — 


UJ 

oc 


u 

CC 

o 

< 


O 


z 

UJ 

2E 


CC 

< 

a. 

ui 

a 

<o 


Q O 
I- 
UJ 

o o 

< z 

t- - 

2 Q 
uj x 
o o 
X o 
UJ o 

CL < 

I « 

• UJ 

<o co 
00 tr 
UJ 
UJ > 
X — 

3 2 
O 3 

Li. 








































































Table 131»- Tenure distribution of (A) all schedules utilized and of (B) long schedules utilized by local areas 


- 251 - 


* 


'■O a\tf\LT\f- | | rl 1C 


LTC® ^ 1-1 I Hrl 


f-KNN'vOi rH tC\ 


CM 


c^o)-4< 


O >ICH J CT\ 

K\ 




CO K~\_ 4 s 0 LT »_4 I OJ I 
l-C\ CJ OJ rH rH 3- 


o 0 i v 2 .tx-g 0-0 o\g 




O'O I 



C-UNCO SCUH | I 14 

[C H 




ml lo* irwtfo\_4c~- i i i OJ 
I I N'N rH 


^ SiSJ ^ ■ “'S 


OJ I -d' 


CD 

I 


© 

,d 

$ 

5 


CQ 


S'? 

cq 

rH X 
rH © 


O Eh 
O ^ 

-< 

•• •• 


w 

© 

rd 

o ^ 

CQ 

o • 

TJ « 


to © 
O Eh 

< 

O "— 

£ 


A 

CO ^ 


V • 

- 

a S 

Ph ” 

-4 


- 

-P ^ 
-P • 

m 

Jl § 


o © 

O EH 

◄ 

d ^ 
o 



d 

o ^ 
to • 
d M 
<D d 
<d < 
4-» 

© 

*“3 


d • 

o o 

g B 
5 


« 


H 

I- 


© 

El 

•H • 

> O 

d • 

© CO 

© W 

u 

o 


d 

o • 

to o 

rH o 

gs 


d 

o 

© «H 

II 

CO p, 

o 
O4 


B 


© 

d 

§ 

© 

-P 


41 

O 


co rcvrH i LA_d | cvi I m 

WOW H (AH ri H | H 

w 

UVC I I I I I OJ I I 

ojoocu i i Lr 'c~-co oj o 

r-i r-i r-i 

OBI4W I H | | | H 

£ 


lAXO CO N*> rH 0\ CO I 
OJ OJ rH CM rH 


C-IOOJ I I rH | | | rH 

MO-d-C^rHcyinirH I \0 

KS H 


rH -4 CO H rH IA I OJ 

CM 




C— fA C\J I I H | | I rH 


LTV «H vO VO CVJ vO I rH | rA 

K\ r-i 


I rA H rH vO I (A I I 


OJ C*- LA-d KMA I ^ I H 
C'- rH rH H rH 


LA_d rA 


rl |v0 I I 


LA ON CO rH O O ON r 
CO rH rH rH CVJ 


I CVJ 


O'* I 4 I I O I -4 rH I 

rH rH 


OvO KVH CVJ OJ CVJ rA 


CO ^ On LTN rH O rH o H I s - 


h -d 


CVJ 




rOit^HvO r- 
H rArA _d 
CVJ rH 



o* o* 


“45 


O 

U 

fcO 

© 

S3 


© 

© 

rd 

O r-N 

O • 

TJ K 
fcO © 
O Eh 

§ W 

S3 




•P ' 
-P 


s § 

o © . 

O Eh 

U~\«i 


d 

o 

W 

© M 

S Jj 


d • 

o o 

•H • 

d S 

go 


© 

rH CP 


£ O 

d • 

© CO 
© —« 
d 

o 


d^CQ 

o •! 
wo. 

rH • 

•H S3 


d 

O 

© *H 
H -P 

1*41 

1 g* 

O 

Ph 


© 

d 

© 

+> 

n 

w 

41 


nO rA-d.rA HJH I I I 


COOJCOlAOrHrHOH | 
C*- rH rH rH CVJ rH 


o i I | i c^-CVJ rev i co 

rev rH 


OJ | rev i i rev rev la l co 
LA LA LA rev 


|H|HH4IH 


^j-d_d CVJ | rH LA'O | LA 


O LAt^ I I O-CVJnO I rA 
—d rH 


■H W H t^-vO © H U> 


Nn co CM 


rH I rH I l K1 It— I I 


CT* I 'O I I Oj I ^j. 1 I 


m IAH rH rH I OJ 

K"\ H 


I 0> I H 


O tAC^r-Lr\ONK'if<> 
o\ c~- co 


vo i oj i i ini 4 i m 


_4 tCivO I Cjrl I rH I rH 
O- cy to* rH 


O H O) rH I I I IA I H 


rH rH 0\fC\ I rH | O I O' 

IA (A 


C" rH 0-vO rH OWO CO I 0> 
■O H rl IC\ 'O rH 


co OJ res 


























































- 252 - 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 


The writer wishes to express his grateful appreciation for the 
loyalty and generosity with which members of the staff, in spite of 
numerous obstacles, carried on their work. Particular mention should 
be made of George 0. Butler, Sam R Carter, Douglas Ensminger, Claude 
Frederick, Charles G. Gomillion, and Marianne Sherman. J, L. Charlton 
rendered valuable aid in the editing, coding, and transcription of the 
schedules. Appreciation is also expressed to the many members of State 
Experiment Station, college, and university staffs, and to social scien¬ 
tists in various branches of the Federal Government, who assisted in 
the formulation of the project, preparation of the schedule, and the 
collection and analysis of the data. The writer's obligations to Carl 
C. Taylor and Lowry Nelson, together with other members of the Social 
Research Section, require specific acknowledgment. 


- 253 - 



STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL 

RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION 
Social Correlatives of Farm Tenure 
11/24/36 

!• Identification 


D. TENURE CLASS 


A. SUPERVISOR'S SCHEDULE NO.: 



□ 

□ 5. 

□ 6 . 

□ 7. 

0 8 . 

□ 9. 

□ • 0 . 

Q 11 . 


L and Io rd 
Pa rt owner 
Owner ope rat o r 
Free of mortgage 
Owner operator 
Mortgaged 
Renter 

Land Io rd relat ed 
Renter 

Landlord unrelated 
C ro p p e r 

Land Io rd re I at ed 
C ro pp e r 

Landlord unrelated 
Farm laborer 
Employer related 
Fa rm I aborer 

Employer unrelated 
Family I a bo re r 
No wages paid 


B. RACE 

_ I. White 

_ 2 . N eg ro 

_ 3 . M e x 1 c an 

_ 4. I n d I an 

_ 5. Other:___ 

C. OCCUPATION 

B l. Farmer, full time 

2. Farmer, part time 

a. Days during past year 
on jobs not connected 
with this farm:_ 

b. Specify type of work 
Involved In "a":_ 

□ 3. Other than farmer 

a. Specify:.__ 


E. HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD {Surname first): 


F. RESIDENCE 

(a) Place of Birth 

(b) Present Address 

1 . State/count ry 



2. County 



3. P.0. Address 



4. Street nr R.F.D. Nn. 



-5. 

( ) 1 . F a rm ( ) 2.Non FarT 

( ) I ■ Farm (l 2.Non Farm 


G. Schedule Completed: Month_Day_Year: 1936_1937 


ENUMERATOR'S SIGNATURE: 


EDI TOR'S SIGNATURE: 































(A) Tenure Class (B) Tenure History 


II. TENURE AND MIGRATION HISTORY 



00 














by gift, mar., or Inher.? No Yes If so, report year(s) 


H 















VO 















(!) 

in 















O 

hO 

Ov 

rtll 













mfl 














cn|| 














—| 













o|| 















C\ 















1920 ' s 

CO 















r- 















v 














m 














rt 














m 














CN| 














— 














o 














1 9 1 0 ' s 

0\ 














00 






- r 








r- 














VO 














m 














rt 














m 














CN 














- 














o 





. 









(/) 

Ch 





. ' 









00 






. 








r- 














VO 














. in 














1 90C 

r± 













c n 

<D 

10 

D 

C 


m 





. . . 

. -r- 








CN 














— 





. - * 

. . 







o 

jO 

o 

c 


o 














1890 ' s 

c* 














00 














r- 













y land/cash ( 


VO 














m 














rt 














m 














CN 














~ 














Q 













C 

(Q 


(Yr. born: -f. 1 5 ) 

1. LANDLORD 

2. PART OWNER 

3. OWNER OPERATOR 

Free of mo rtg aq e 

4. OWNER OPERATOR 

Mo rt g ag e d 

5. RENTER 

_Land I o rd_re 1ated_ 

6. RENTER 

Landlord unrelated 

7. CROPPER 

L and 1 o rd re 1 at ed 

8. CROPPER 

Landlord unrelated 

9. FARM LABORER 

Employer re 1 at ed 

10. farm laborer 

Employer unrelated 

11. FAMILY LABORER 

N o wag es paid 

12. All other occupations 

rec 1 d. 

Year 

C. Have you ever i 

i valuels) 


(E) Migration History 

o 

m 

cr> 







r- 







vo 







in 







rt 







m 







CN 







- 







o 







19 20 ' s 

c* 







CO 







r- 







yo 







m 







rf 







m 







CN 







- 







O 






s,0161 







00 






r- 












m 


















CN 







— 






o 






to 

c* 






00 






r- 






iO 






m 






o 

o 

crv 

rj- 






m 






CN 







_ 






O 














00 







t- 






to 

VD 






o 

in 






CTi 

00 

rt 





















— 







o 






1(0) Migration 


i| . Miles moved at each 
migration 

2. Years changing land¬ 
lord/employer 

3. Years changing trade 
_center_ 

4. Year moved to new 
county 

I o • Year moved to new 

state (Specify) 


£L 



O 


CL 


z 


X. 


X 




LLI 



CD 


< 




Code 

















































































































































































































II1 * E.ARM TENURE AND RELATED QUESTIONS 


I. Compared with the averaae family in + u t > 

Is, ) a-better off- 1 „ d, tllll Jtlr f „ Mj 

> ) b-about the same as the averag 


3. 


3. 




2. In what respects?. 

What class of people around here do you think Is worst off?, 
do you think causes them to be worst off? 


) c-worse off? 


4. What 


Do you 'think you would be bet+prn-f-f i-f . 

Detter off If your farm were bigger? Yes ? No 

Do you think your present farming practices are r i a , 

fa „. , , h „ . „ 9 P ‘ CeS are ( ) a-lmprovlng the soil on this 

arm, ( ) b-not affecting Its fertility; ( , c-harmlng It? 

7. How, or In what way?__ 


Are you satisfied with your Dresent n i+ ~~ ' -- 

your present credit arrangements? Yes ? No 

9. If n.,. what one change ,o„ a ,ou Ilk. to »a ke ? , , a-,owe. ,k. rate; 

--tend the period for repay.ent; , , o-,„or.ase maximum amount of credit 

( ) d —other:_ 


10 . 
I I . 
12 . 


13. 


Would you rather farm than do anything else for a living? 
Do you wish you had had more school Ing? Yes ? No 
Howmuch school Ing do you think a son ought to have? { ) 

school; ( ) c-college; ( ) d-uncertaln; ( ) e -otherr 


Yes 


N o 


a-grade school; ( Jb-hlgh 


If you had your choice what would you prefer to have a son do for a living? 

I I a-have no preference; ( I b-farm; , , mother than far.; I , d-uncertaln 

If your choice Is "farm", would you prefer for him to be a farm owner? 

Yes ? No 

Why, or why not?__ 


14. 


15 . 

16. 


I 7 


I 8 


Do you think the Government ought to help him to become a farm owner? 

Yes ? No 

Do you think a son should be willing to sacrifice some conveniences to 
become a farm owner? Yes ? No 

The number of farm tenants In the U. S. has been increasing for a good many years, 
Do you think the Government ought to do anything about It? Yes ? No 
19. If so, what?__ 


QUESTIONS 20 AND 21 APTLY ONLY TO FARM OWNERS: 



20 . 


2 l. 


22 


Do you feel better off, from a business point of view, as a farm owner 
than you did before you became one? Yes ? No 

Do you think people respect you more as a farm owner than they would if you 
were a renter? Yes ? No 

Do you favor that part of the AAA program whereby the Government pays farmers to 
reduce their crop acreage? Yes ? No 

23. Why, or why not?__ 


24. 


26. 


Do you favor that part of the Sol I Conservation program whereby the Government 
pays farmers for conserving or improving soil fertility? Yes ? No 

25. Why, or why not?___ 

Do you favor that part of the Resettlement Administration program whereby the 


Yes 


No 


28. 


Government helps needy farmers "to get on their feet"? 

27. Why, or why not?_ 

Do you favor that part of the Farm Credit Administration program whereby the 


Government makes loans to farmers? 
29. Why, or why not? 


Yes 


N 0 


30. If you Inherited $500 today, what would you do with It?.. 
















1. 

2 . 


20 , 


30. 


3 I 


32. 


IV. a. LANDLORD-TENANT/EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE REIiATIONSHIPS 

(torn for tenant/enployee) 

Do you and your landlord/employer have a written agreement? Yes ? No 
For how long (altogether) does your agreement (written or not) run? 



Less than one year 


Four years 


One year 


Five years 


Two years 


Over five years 


Three years 


Other: 


If you had the chance, would you make any changes In your renting agreement? 
4. If so, what changes would you make? 

_ a-More supervision of tenant In operation of farm. 

_ b-Less supervision of tenant In operation of farm. 

c-Wrltten rental agreement. 

d-Pavment guaranteed to tenant for his Improvement of farm 
e-Payment guaranteed to landlord for damages done to farm. 
f-Longer term for lease. 


Yes 


No 


Have you had a disagreement with your I and 1ord/empIoyer during 

6 . 


□ g-Automatlcally renewable lease, with 
_ notification clause. 

l_l h-Increase tenant's share of crops/llve- 
stock. 

I_1 l-lncrease landlord’s share of crops/ 

_ I I vestock. 

I 1 j-Ot her:_ 

the past year? Yes 


No 


If so, what did you do about It? 

i a-Personal negotiation ("talked It over"). 
b-Submltted It to arbitration, formal or Informal. 


B 


B. 


c-Took It 
I d-Ot her:_ 

Did you get any outside advice or financial assistance? Yes ? No 
If so, which, 4 from whom? Advice a Financial assistance; _ 


to cou rt. 


7. 

8 . 

Does your landlord/employer have any control over your operating credit? 
10. Lf so. In what respects? 


Yes 


No 


□ , 


Yes 


? 


12. 


14. 


16. 


.a-Sets maximum amount of credit available 
.b-Provldes operating credit 
_Jc-FIxes Interest rate 

II. Does your I and Iord/empIoyer "stand good” for your debts? 

Do you Intend to remain on this farm next year? Yes ? No 

13. Why or why not?_ 

Do you think you would run this farm any differently If you owned It? 
15. If so, what would you do differently?_ 


Practically decides what you can afford 

□ to buy. 

e-01 h e r :_ 


No 


Yes 


No 


Do you think you would feel better off If you owned this farm, but had 

17. Do you think owners generally feel better off than renters? Yes 

18. Are you seriously looking forward to owning a farm? Yes ? No 

19. Would you say that your prospects of owning a farm 
I )c-po o r? 

Would you like to buy this farm? Yes ? No 


a mo rt gage on It? 
? No 


Yes 


No 


the next five years are: ( la-good; ( )b-falr; 


2 I 


25. 

26. 
27. 


If not, would you like to buy some other farm? Yes ? No 

22. If so, how big a farm would you like to buy?_acri 

23. Would you want any help or advice In finding a suitable farm? 


Yes 


? 

Yes 


No 

? 


I n 


24. Would you want any advice from ydur creditor In running your farm? 

What price would you have to pay for such a farm? $_ 

How much could you pay down on the purchase price? $_ 

How big a loan would you need? $_ 

28. How many years would you need to repay the loan?_Years. 

29. What do you think would be a fair rate of Interest?_ % 

general, what does your I and Iord/empIoyer have to say about your farming operations? 


No 


_ a-Leaves • dec IsI on entirely up to you. ( If this response Is checked, omit remaining questions. ) 

_b-SImply discusses the problems with you. 

c-Usually suggests what you should do, but does not command. 
d-GIves strict orders, tells you what to do, and how to do It. 

e-Ot her:___ 

How often does your I and Iord/empIoyer or his representative come to the farm and discuss your farming 
operations with you? 

_ d-Every two weeks _ 

h-Never 
I-Ot her: 



a-Da I 1 y 


d-Every two weeks 



b-Several times a week 


e-Every three weeks 



c—Eve ry we ek 


f-Every month 



a year 


W hic h of the following topics are taken up? 

_a-How much fertilizer to buy/where to put It. 

_ b-When/where to plant crops. 

.c-How often/how deep to cultivate. 

_d-What to raise beside cash crops. 

_e—Whether /how large to make a garden. 

_f-Whether terracIng/guI Iy rep a IrIng/draInIng are to be done. 
_g-How to care for/use work animals. 

_h-Whether to buy a car. 


[ 1 1—How early/late you should work during 

the day. 

-Whether you should work off the farm 
for pay. 

-Whether chiIdren should go to school. 
-Whether w1fe/chI Idren should work In 
fields. 


□j- 

Rk-v 

1_11 —V 







































3, 

4. 




3 I 



IV b • LANDLORD-TENANT/EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS 

^ orm for landlord/employer) Type of U 

Ten/Emp.:R_ 

Do you and your tenant/employee have a written agreement? Yes ? No 
For how long (altogether) does your agreement run? (whether written or not) 

— a-Less than one year. — d-Three years. Lj g-Over five years. 

— b-One year. — e-Four years. | lh-Other:_~_ 

— c-Two years. —If-FIve years. 

1 f y° u flad chanc e, would you make any changes In your renting agreement? Yes ? No 

if so, what changes would you make? 

a-MORE supervision of tenant In operation of farm. 
b-LESS supervision of tenant in operation of farm. 
c-Written rental agreement. 

d-Payment guaranteed to tenant for his Improvement of farm. 
e-Payment guaranteed to landlord for damages done to farm. 
f-Longer term for lease. 

_1 g-Automat Ica I Iy renewable lease, with notification clause. 

_ h-lncrease tenant's share of crops/1 1vestock. 

I —Increase landlord's share of crops/I 1vestock. 

j - Ot h e r:_ 

Have you had a disagreement with your tenant-employee during the past year? Yes ? No 

6. If so, what did you do about it? 

a-Personal negotiation ("talked It over"). 
b-Submitted It to arbitration, formal or Informal. 
c-Took It to court. 

d—Other: _ 

7. Did you get any outside advice or financial assistance? Yes ? 

8. If so, which, !t from whom? [^] Advice Q Financial assistance:_ 


No 


Do you have any control over the operating credit of your tenant/empIoyee? 
10. If so, in what respects? 

a-Set maximum amount of credit available. 
b-Provlde operating credit. 
c-F I x Interest rate. 
d-PractIcaI Iy decide what he can afford to buy. 
e—Ot her:. 

I I 


Yes 


No 


Do you "stand good" for the debts of your tenant/empIoyee? Yes 


No 


In general, what do you have to say about the farming operations of your ten./emp.? 
| | a-Leave decisions entirely up to him. ( If this r esponse Is checked, omit 

remainlna Questions.) 

b— SImply discuss the problems with him. 

c-Usually suggest what he should do, but do not command. 
d-GIve strict orders, tell him what to do, and how to do It. 

How often do you or your representative come to the farm and discuss the farming 
at ions of your tenant/ 
a-DaI Iy 

b-Several times a week 
_c—Every week 

Which of the following topics are taken up? 

a-How much fertilizer to buy/where put it 
b-When/where to plant crops. 
c-How often/how deep to cultivate. 
d-What to raise beside cash crops. 
e-Whe t he r/ho w large to make a garden. 
f-Whether terracIng/guI Iy repairing/ 
draining are to be done 



d—Every two weeks 


g-Sev eral 


e-Every three weeks 


h-N ever 


f — Ev e ry mo nt h 


i-Ot h e r: _ 


g-How to care for/use work animals. 
h-Whether to buy a car. 
i-How early/late he should work 
during the day. 

j-Whether he should work off the farm 


for pay. 

k-Whether his children should go to school 
-Whether his wlfe/chI Idren should work In fields. 
















































V. HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION AND CHARACTERISTICS 
(BJ_ (O'. (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (J 



C 



03 



jC 



5 

X 



o 


03 

o 

<D 

C 

■H 

V- 

— 


D 

E 

a; 

C 

V. 

03 

<D 

co 

<o 

h~ 


— <d 


CO — 
E Q 


3 cr 


3 cr 


3 cr 


13 cr 


13 cr 


13 cr 


o cr 


.■j cr 


3 cr 


3 cr 3 cr 


cr 


3 cr 


3 cr 


c 

o 

-H 

<0 

CL 

D 

O 

O 

o 




-H 


<D 



10 

i 

a 

03 


i- 

i- 

CO 

03 

-H 


CO 

.— 

< 

(0 

N- 

E 



1 

*o 

c 

a; 


03 £ 

c o 
— c 


>~ 


10 

03 

O 

i. 

CD 


•O 

0) 


I 

E 

o 

o 


a; 

03 

< 


jT 

U 4-» OJ 

— E 
jC 03 O 
$ — -C 


(L 

03 E 
C -H O 

— <0x: 


-> 






->1 






CD 


03 

03 

< 


(0 *- >• 
(0 — <0 
— X1-0 


X 

03 



T3 

c 

— 

O T3 

o 

— (0 

O SZ 

+-> 03 

03 

& X 

"O 10 


<0 23 

03 O 

03 O 

cr + J 

X X 




o> 

E 

(0 

z 


<D 

C 

— O 


CN 


in 


VO 


CO 


CN 


00 


ode 

































































































VI. farm and t 

ENURE C 

HARADTEF.ISTICS 

(A) 

TOTAL 
OWN ED 

(B ) 

OWN ED 

RENTED 

TO OTHERS 

(C) 

OWN ED 

an d 

OPERATED 

(D) 

RENTED 

and 

OPERATED 

(E) 

TOTAL 

OPERATED 

1. TOTAL number of acres in FARM 






2. Number of acres of CROP land 






3. No. of acres of PLOWABLE NON-CROP land 






-No. Of acres of OTHER NON-CROP LAND 







During the past year, what was the largest 
number you owned at an y one time of: 


6. No. acres covered. 


8 . 


a. Horses & Colts. . . 

b. Mules Jt Mule colts. 

c. Oxen. 

d. Beef cattle Jt Calves 

e. Dairy cattle Jt Calves 

f. Goats Jt kids. 

g. Sheep Jt lambs 

h. Hogs Jt pigs . 

i. Chickens. . . 

j. All other fowl 

k. Hives of bees 


What was your total Gross Income for 
1936 to the nearest $100: 


Maj 0 r Sou rces 

of In come 

Total Gross 

1 ncome 1 0 

N ea re st 
$100.00 

- Total 


a. Major crop 


b. Second crop 


c. Livestock 


d. Dai rv p roducts 


e. Other farm 


f. Non-farm 



9. Do you have any mortgage indebtedness on farm machinery, livestock or crops? Yes No 

10. Do you have a definite idea of the value of this farm? Yes No If so, what is the 

total value of this farm (land and buildings), Including farm land and buildings rented 
f rom others? $_ 

11. Do you ordinarily furnish all of the work stock used on the farm? Yes No 


None 1/4 1/3 

12. What is your share of the major crop? ( i i i ( 

13. Ditto for livestock increase or proceeds? 1 -' *- 1 1 - 


1/2 2/3 3/4 All 



QUESTIONS 14 THROUGH 17 APPLY ONLY TO FARM OVNERS. 

14. Is there any mortgage debt on the farm 

15. How many farm laborers do you employ? 

16. To how' many croppers do you rent land? 

17. Same for renters other than croppers? 

Totals: 


land you own? Yes No 


White 

Re 1 at ed 

N ea ro 

Other 

T ota Is 






















QUESTION 18 APPLIES ONLY TO NON-FARM OWNERS. 

18. Land Iord 1 s/empIoyer’s name, address, race and relationship to you? 

a. Name of I and I o rd/emp I oyer:___ 

b. Addressof " " :__ __ _- 

c. If absentee Lnd./Em., list name of manager/supervisor:- 

d. Address of manager/supervi sor:___ 

e. Race of landlord/employer: ( ) white ( ) negro ( ) other(specify) 

f. Relationship of I and I ord/empIoyer to you:I ) not related ( ) parent(s) 

( ) g r a nd p a re n t ( s ) ( ) b rot herl s ) or slster(s). 


A 


B 





Code 










































































































VII. Material Elements in Family Living 

(TO BE ANSWERED BY HOUSEWIFE) 


A. HOUSI 
Now 

Have I, 


NG 


Prefer to 

Construction Materials: Have 


Now 

Have 


B. PUBL. REGULARLY RECEIVED 


Prefer 
to Have 



a. Brick, Stone, Tile, etc. 



b. Wood frame, (painted). . 



c. Wood frame,(unpainted) . 



d. Log . 

e. Other 



Now 


P re f e r 
Have 


to 


I . 
2 . 

3. 

4. 

5. 
6 . 


None. 

Newspaper! s) , dally . 
Newspaper! s I, weekly. 
Periodicals, farm . . 

" , re I i g I ou s 

" , worn en's. 

Children's 



a. Furnace. 




8. 

" other 


b. Heating stove . 


Now 


— 

c. Kitchen range . 


Have 

C. 

MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION: 

— 

d. Fireplace . 



_ 

». 

None(Walk) . 


e. Other 




2. 

Automobile. 


P re fe r 
to Have 


0 


Now 
Have 3. 


Now 

Have 


Now 

Have 5 


B 


Prefer 
Have 


t o 



a. Electricity (power line) 



b. Electricity (farm plant) 



c. Gasoline lamps. .... 



d. K e ro sen e 1 amp s. 



e. Other 



a . 
b . 
c . 

—I d • 

e. 


Drinking Water Supply: 

Running Water in house. 
Power—driven pump . . 

Hand-operated pump. . 
Open welI and bucket. . 
Ot he r_ 


P ref e r 
H ave 


t o 


Sanitation: 


Prefer 

Have 


t o 



a. Indoor toilet . 



b. Sanitary privy. 



c. Unimproved privy. . . 

— 


d. No toilet facilities. . 

— 


e. Other 



Now 

Have 6, 


a. 

1—1 b. 
c . 

d. 
e . 

L_1 f. 


Household Equipment: 

Kitchen sink with drain 
Running water in house 
Indoor to i I et 

Sewing machine 

Was hing machine 

Icebox or refr'gerator 


4. 

5 

6 . 

7 . 

Now 

Ha ve D. 
I . 
2 . 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6 . 

7 . 

8 . 

Now 

Have E. 


2 . 

3. 

4. 

5. 


3. I val ue of "2": $_ 

Wago nor buggy. . . . 

Two-wheeled Cart. . . 

Horseback or muleback 
Ot h e r_ 




INSURANCE POLICIES: 

None.. . 

Life. 

Burial.. . 

AutomobiIe. 

Crops (hail, etc, 
Farm Buildings. . 
Persona! Property 
01 h e r_ 


P re f e r 
t o H ave 


) 


TYPE OF COMMONLY-USED 
PUBLIC ROAD 

Hard-Surface, any type, 
Graded gravel, crushed 
Graded dirt/clay . . . 
Ungraded dirt/clay. . . 
T r a I I. 


rock 


If you could have only one of 
which would you prefer? a 


these things 
b c 


g. Phonog raph 

h. Organ 
I . Plano 


Radio 
Telep ho n e 


) If you could have only one of these things, 
) which would you prefer? d e f 


) If you could have only one of these things, 
) which would you prefer? g h i 

) 

) If you could have only one of these things, 
) which would you prefer? j k 


7. Number of rooms In house:. 














































































VIII. FORMALLY ORGANIZED SOCIAL PARTICIPATION 


( A ) 

Name or type of organization, 
club, association, or 
organized activity. 

( B ) 

Exists 

In the 

local 

a rea ? 

XbY e s 

(C) (D) (E) (F) (G) 

During the past year 

N o. o f 

meet- 

I ng s 

If one or more members of family 
belong to this organization: 

Most f req. 
attendant 
went 

N o.m em. 
In this 
fam I 1 y 

No. of¬ 
fices 
held 

Tot a 1 

fees 

paid 

(1) RELIGIOUS: 







1. Church: (give denom.) 







2. Su nday SchooI : 







3. Choir: 







4. Adults' religious organization: 







5. Young peoples's re 1 Ig. 
o rq an I zat I on : 







6 . HI-Y : 







7. Other religious organizations 
for boys: 







8. Other religious organizations 
for girls: 







9. Girl Reserves: 







10. Women's Missionary Soc. 







II. Ladies' Aid Society: 







12. Bible study group: 







13. Dally vacation Bible School: 







14. Other religious organizations: 

(2) EDUCATIONAL: 







15. Parent-Teachers Assoc.: 







16. Literary society, book club, 

[-pad 1 na arouD. etc.: 







17. Men's agric. extension 
orqaniza. or assoc.: 







18. Home demonstra. club or 
womenaoric. ext. orq. 







19. Organization for older 
youth (15—29 years): 







20. Four-H Club: Girls: 







2 1. Fou r-H Club: Boys: 







22. Other educa. orq. or activity: 

















































VIII FORMALLY ORGANIZED SOCIAL PARTICIPATION 9 


( A ) 

Name or type of organization, 
club, association, or organized 
activity. 

( B) 

Exists 

in the 

local 

area? 

X = Yes 

(C) (D) (E) (F) (G) 

During the past year: 

N o . o f 

meet- 

I ngs 

1 f one or more members of fami |y 
belong to this organization: 

Most f req. 
att end ant 
went 

No. mem. 

in this 
f ami I y 

No. of¬ 
fices 
ne 1 d 

Total 

fees 

paid 

(3) OCCUPATIONAL: 

23. Farmers' Coop, and Educa. 

Union of America. 







24. American Farm Bureau Federation: 







25. Junior Farm Bureau: 







26. The Granqe: 







27. Juvenile Grange: 

. 






28. Farmers' Association: 







29. Farmers' Institute: 







30. Master Farmers of America: 







31. Future Farmers of America: 







32. Home Bureau or Home-Makers' Club: 







33. Tenant, cropper, or farm 
laborer organization: 







34. Farm crops: (Special interest 
g ro u p ) 







35. Livestock: (Special interest 
g ro up ) 






- 

36. Fruits and vegetables: (Special 
interest q ro u p ) 







37. Dairying: (Special interest 
q roup ) 







38. Other occupational organization: 







(4) ECONOMIC: 

39. Farm crop marketing 

association: 







40. Livestock and poultry 
marketinq association: 







41. Dairy products marketing 
association: 







42. Fruit and vegetable 

marketing association: 







43. Other marketing 
association: 







44. Coop, store or exchange: 







45. Other purchasing association: 







46. Credit association: 







47. Coop, insurance company 













































VIII. FORMALLY ORGANIZED SOCIAL PARTICIPATION 10. 


( A ) 

Name or type of organization, 
club, association, or 
organized activity. 

(Economic cont'd.) 

( B ) 

Ex Ist s 

in the 

local 

a rea? 

X=Yes 

(C) (D) (E) (F) (G) 

During the past vear: 

No. of 

Meet- 

i ng s 

If one or more members of family 
belong to this organization: 

Mo st f req. 
att end ant 
went 

No. mem. 
in this 
fam 1 I y 

No. 0 f- 
f 1 ces 
held 

Tot al 

fees 

paid 

48. Coop, telephone company; 







49. Other cooperative assoc.: 







(5) FRATERNALILodges, secret societies): 
50. Wen ( s organization: 







51. Adult s' organization, both sexes: 







52. Minors' organization: 







53. Women's frat. organization: 







54. Other fraternal organization: 







56) OTHER ORGANIZATIONS: 

(a) Civic. Pat riotic: 

55. American Legion: 







56. American Legion Auxiliary: 







57. V. F. W. 







58. Daughters of the American Rev.: 







59. United Daughters of the 

Co nfede racy: 







60. Boy Scouts: 







61. Girl Scouts or Camp Fire Girls: 







62. National or International 
civic clubs: 







63. Local community club: 







64. Nationality association: 







65. Other civic or patriot, 
p* «;n n 3 at 1 on- 







(b) Philanthropic Organization: 

66 . 







(c) Reformist Organization: 

67. 












































VIII FORMALLY ORGANIZED SOCIAL PARTICIPATION 


11. 


(A) 

Name or type of organization, 
club, association, or 
organized activity. 

(OTHER ORGANIZATIONS cont.I 

( B) 

(Cl (D) (E) (F) (G) 

Exists 

In the 
local 
a rea? 

XrYes 

During the past year: 

No . of 

meet¬ 

ings 

If one or more members of faml ly 
belong to this organization: 

Most freq. 
att endant 

went 

N o, mem, 
In this 
faml1y 

No. of¬ 
fices 

held 

Total 

fees 

paid 

( d I A rt I st I c : 

68. Musical (instrumental: 

band, orchestra) organlz. 







69. Musical (Vocal: not church 
choirs) o rq an I zat I on : 







70. Dramatic organization: 







71. Other artistic organiz. 







(e) Social or Recreational: 

72. Women's social or recrea¬ 
tional organization: 







73. Men's social or recrea¬ 
tional organization: 







74. Adults' social or recrea¬ 
tional o rgan I z. , bot h sexes: 







75. Other recreational 
o rgan I zat i on: 








(ENUMERATOR OMIT) 


SUMMARY OF FORMALLY ORGANIZED 
SOCIAL PARTICIPATION 

Total 

0 rq an. 

Total 

Meet. 

Total At¬ 
tendances 

Total 
Memb e rs 

Total 

Offices 

Total 

paid 

1. Religious organizations: 







2. Educational organizations: 







3. Occupational organizations: 







4. Economic organizations: 







5. Fraternal organizations: 







6. All other organizations: 







(a) Civic, patriotic orqs. : 







(b) Philanthropic organs.: 







(c) Reformist orqanlza.: 







( d I Political o rq an I za. : 







(e) Artistic orqanlza. : 







(f) Recreational orqanlza.: 







(7 T GRAND TOTALS ALL 

ORGAN 1ZAT1ONS : 








IX. INFORMALLY ORGANIZED SOCIAL PARTICIPATION 


I. During past 12 months, one or more members of family went to or took part In: 


_ a-Reiigious revival 

_ b-Chautauqua 

c-Lyceum 

_ d-Cou nt y fair 

2. During past year, one or 



e-St at e fair 



f-CI reus 



g-Dan ce s 



h-MovIes 



more adult members of this 


I -At hIetIc 
j-PIcIn I c 
k-Hu ntI ng 

I-F1sh I ng 
fam I Iy : I 


events 


la-served on jury; 


( )b-voted; ( )c-paid taxes: amount (excluding sales tax, etc. )$, 


3. Adult member of this family Is now holding public office:! la-local government; 
( lb-state government: specify: ___.__ 






















































INTER-FAMILY SOCIAL PARTICIPATION Type of Part Icl.oatlon 

Number of times during the past twelve months 
that one or more members of THIS FAMILY 


X 


I c TU- 

cm , 


C - ~ S <U 


c 

<0 


— «■“ in 

_j jc 10 — in 

_ o ~ o 1 - 

x -o o o <u 

UJ 4> -H S E 


in 

in <o m 

— u -h 

^ T3 4) 4) — w 

_ (0 -C 1- <0 4) 

X -H 4) 4) 3 

Q£ E O) 


-a w >> 

0) — JO 

— (/) +j JC 

—3 <0 ~ H 0 ) 

— 3: m 6 

— ■HO 
> <0 SI 


•H f- 
<0 O 

— H 

X W <0 — 4) 

— <0 4) <0 E 

5 3 O 4) O 

cm'H E -c 


U 


■H 4J 

O <0 E 
H O 
H -C <*- 
-H — O 
c in 4) 

4) — JC 
3 > -H 


CT> 



C 



•— 



-H 






CL 


■H 

— 


</) 

O 



•— 


•— 

•H 

(/) 

‘f- 


a> 



• . 

<D 

CL 

• - 

E 


E 


H- 


C 

O 

U_ 

L. 



U 

(0 


C/) 

a> 



E 







— 3 — 

UJ C 4) 

_ 4) IX 



<D 



L. 

</> 

—► 

D 

(0 

Q 

C 

<0 


0) 

— 


H 

o 


I 

■H 

m 

a 


4) 

O 

c 

<0 


4? 

— O 

CD >0 

X 


-1- 

<CJ 

— — T3 

< 4) 4) 

w X -H 


3 X 


CN 


X 


fO 


3 X 


in 


3 x 


m 


3 


in 


io 


>- 


cc 


oo 


3 X 


a 


3 <X 




3 a 


X 




IN 


3 X 


X 


3 a: 


m 


3 X 


VO 


34 : 


15 


UJ 


CO 


Code 





































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 


0 022 040 831 0 














